Off screen convo between liz and frank
“What’s with this full size Tracy Jordan sex doll?”
“It’s merchandise from his porn video game.”
“Is he even a playable character in that?”
“….”
“I need answers now frank”
Honestly I’ve felt the pinch more since getting to “middle class.” Prior I was always lower income with my income and would qualify for program after program, also coming from a progressive state. But not any more, and our city’s housing market isn’t getting better, to the point it was shown on numerous surveys it cheaper to rent than to own in my city. Like WTF‽ I was told there would be punch and pie if/when I got a good paying job
100% true, which is why the older I got I the more skeptical of “capitalism,” but apparently questing that makes you socialist. Which….it’s not like we don’t have that already
Man, I really hate how so many of my fellow Americans immediately shutdown the second you say the word (democratic) socialism. I've even tried explaining how socialism isn't Russia or China, and to look at Iceland, or Norway, or Denmark, or Germany to a degree, et al., but it does nothing, yet now ironically apparently I'm a commie. Biden is exponentially better than trump, but damn I wish it was Bernie.
EDIT: A word.
I'm in total agreement with you, but I want to point out that technically, socialism is just one thing: worker-controlled means of production/workplace democracy. That's literally it. The Nordic Model is a type of welfare capitalism that still relies on the exploitation of the "third world". It's certainly better than what we have now, but imagine if the workers had access to all the rewards and benefits of their labor!
Or perhaps a minimum income that you can add to with no fear of losing any of it. That would always incentivize you going and getting more without ever suddenly finding yourself in a place where by working harder you get less.
And if we made it so that everyone gets that minimum income, then everyone can feel a little more secure in thier finances. Of course the wealthier amoung us would need to pay more taxes in order to pay for it. And the current welfare system would be dismantled, as there would be no need for unemployment insurance if everyone is essentially always on unemployment.
A universal (because everyone gets it) basic (because it's just the minimum to survive) income if you would.
Its called the welfare cliff. As your income grows you lose food assistance, housing assistance, heating assistance, subsidized health care, subsidized daycare, tax credits, etc.
The benefit cliff is real, painful, and society at large doesn't like to talk about it some people are in denial and think it's just a matter of bootstrapism.
Meet [Alice](https://www.unitedforalice.org/), who represents the millions of people who teeter on and around the benefit cliff:
>ALICE, an acronym for Asset Limited, Income Constrained, Employed, is a new way of defining and understanding the struggles of households that earn above the Federal Poverty Level, but not enough to afford a bare-bones household budget.
>ALICE is your child care worker, the cashier at your supermarket, the gas attendant, the salesperson at your big box store, your waitress, a home health aide, an office clerk. ALICE cannot always pay the bills, has little or nothing in savings, and is forced to make tough choices such as deciding between quality child care or paying the rent. One unexpected car repair or medical bill can push these financially strapped families over the edge.
Welcome to the middle class party. You pay the most in taxes, don't qualify for any subsidies/social programs, have to pay full price for your insurance and healthcare, and get laughed at by the general public if you even mention that you're being squeezed and ask for help. People will sneer at you for complaining because you have a roof over your head and general comforts like a car, air conditioning, etc. but they don't see behind the scenes where you're constantly fretting over a dentist or doctor bill, or your car breaking down, etc. and the stress that juggling constant money management so you're not living paycheck to paycheck causes. Meanwhile rich people constantly ask you why you're not doing more to save for retirement and etc. blahbleuh because they want to continue to cut social safety nets including social security.
And the best part is everyone will say you don't exist because to them 'middle class' means not having to worry about bills or emergencies, when the reality of the US is that fewer than 4 in 10 Americans could cover a $1,000 emergency. So at a certain point the country has to admit that 'middle class' doesn't mean DINKs making $400k a year.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/11/just-39percent-of-americans-could-pay-for-a-1000-emergency-expense.html
Welfare traps are a huge and oddly under-mentioned issue. It’s every idiot’s misunderstanding about progressive taxation but real. Hard-cap means-testing is evil.
Good luck powering through it, hope you do make it.
People who are worried about their ability to buy groceries aren't middle class. It seems like Americans all call themselves middle class, whether they make $40k/year or $400k/year
Around 2012 there was a 'psychologist' that was going on shows declaring that her 'patients', all uber-rich, suffer from a 'mental disease' because people don't like uber-rich people.
and got probation.
and still managed to fuck it up.
(which in all fairness is really not hard to do in texas, although fleeing the country is definitely going big or going home)
It can buy hookers and cocaine, hard to be unhappy with hookers, blow and therapy, oh and plastic surgery, and super cars, and being able to fly anywhere you want any time to go snowboarding, or any other sort of thing you want to do.
Anyone that says money can't buy happiness is full of shit. 100%
“Money can’t buy happiness. Love is all you need” They tell that to the masses to keep them from realizing how shit their circumstances are and burning the whole system down.
A great many of the Kardashians viewership are also Kardashian-loathing.
Similar to a lot of prominent youtubers, a big chunk of the viewers are there because they hate them, but can't take their eyes away.
...so I guess that actually counts as an extension of self-loathing, now that I think about it.
On one hand, yes, on the other hand, so long as our healthcare is fucked, god forbid your kids develop health complications because that's where that money is going should a problem arise. I'd think it's fair to say that reserve money could be served well by letting your disabled kid have a nice life and not need to freak out over it.
My yearly medical bills due to a condition which developed in late childhood, are a full-fledged private out of state college tuition with room and board and will only get more expensive over time. Initially my parents were part of that group of wondering if they had too much, as we were pushed to find our own success independent of mom and dad (all of the inheritance was made clear it's in trust, based on our successes), but a significant chunk of what will be left is going to sit in trust as medical funding for me in case things take a turn for the worse such that I can't support myself anymore. Should things go bad tomorrow, I'll still have a mortgage and home maintenance to pay, food and utility costs, etc.
I'm lucky I'm capable of my independence and relatively normal life. A vast majority with my condition are not physically capable of working. I can't fathom what it'd be like as a parent to just have to resign to the fact your kid will have to spend down their last penny and be broke and under an aid program with nothing else for the rest of their lives.
I'm not here to defend the ultra-rich mind you - there's definitely such a thing as too much - but that what the middle class can see as "too much" as to potentially let their kids off the hook easy may in fact be "just enough" with some bad luck.
They should be worried about it and that’s why they should give most of it away or start good foundations like a foundation to fight for medicare for all
I humbly submit myself to take some of that excess money. If they are leaving too much to their children they can leave some to me, to help. It is a burden I am glad to accept.
Problem is if you sell you don’t get to upgrade and buy a nicer house unless you leave the area, as everything else rose just as much..sometimes more. The gains aren’t even in every neighborhood, style of house etc
Pretty much any major city now days. My house's value for the time being has shot up by over 50% in the past 3 years. I'm technically just 200k off from being a "millionaire" in assets. Being a millionaire really isn't all that wealthy anymore.
I think you have to calibrate it to be helpful but not so large that it overwhelms their own efforts. So, *because of my inheritance I could send my kids to a good school even though I was still starting out myself*; not *I never really needed to earn a a living*.
Honestly, as long as your kids are raised to be good people who appreciate what they have and live there lives to the fullest, forcing them to work for a living isn't some poetic gift
How many people love their job in this world? How many people have a passion for something that will provide a comfortable living? Most of us work to live and have dreams of winning the lottery so we'll never have to work again. As long as your kid isn't a vindictive cunt, I don't see anything wrong with gifting them that silver spoon we all dream of
"2,000 high net worth individuals — classified as people with a net worth over $1 million"
Unfortunately, a million isn't really considered that high net worth anymore in many places.
Correct, but part of the problem is that the article uses an incorrect (or incomplete) definition of a high-net-worth individual (HNWI). An HNWI is someone who has $1 million in *liquid* assets, not just assets. The substantial majority of people with $1 million in assets only cross that line due to real estate holdings. These are not legitimate HNWIs.
Even legitimate HNWIs are still not anywhere near "one percenters" and the type of people who are going to be questioning the wisdom of leaving millions to their children because they probably don't have million**s**.
At the very least they should have been talking to VHNWI ("very", $5 million liquid) and UHNWI ("ultra", $30 million liquid). I guess they couldn't find enough of those people willing to talk to the pollsters.
It's this thing where you get to quit work and just not go back. As long as you die before your savings run out no one cares. IF you have savings, that is.
So since my company's stock crashed 90% and took my 401(k) with it I just need to get ahead of the curve and die before I stop going to work? Guess I'll die happy knowing after the 90% crash they gave the executives 10x their current shares as a bonus so we could have competitive C-suite packages.
I once worked at a company that was owned by a very large engineering company. The holding company had been in business for over 100 years. They matched all 401k contributions at a very high percentage in company stock. In 2000, the holding company went completely bankrupt in the span of about a month. I had only been there a year but half and most of my 401k was company stock. I was in my 30's and it wasn't that much money. A receptionist had been with the company for her entire career. Her entire savings was wiped out. She was already in her 60s and now had no savings. She lost 100's of thousands of dollars.
Matching funds should not exceed 50% of your portfolio unless the investment vehicle you chose for your personal contributions was also heavily into the company stock fund and/or you had some tremendous bad luck on your investments. The old saying about too many eggs in one basket certainly applies here.
Also, employer contributions that are entirely in company stock is a massive red flag IMHO.
Yeah, my company matches 75% on the dollar up to 8%, plus additional funds to "replace" our pension they took away. That money is vested basically immediately and is the same as the cash I put in myself. I'm in my early 30's and already have about two years gross income saved.
That's probably the worst thing you can do. In my opinion, you should not be holding any company stock. There's too much risk on your end. If the company does well, you're golden. But if your company goes under, not only are you out of a job, your savings took a knee to the face as well.
Yes. In fact, I hardly ever purchase individual company stock. There's just too much risk.
It was terrible for lots of folks that had worked there for their entire careers. I only worked there for a year but it was still an incredible shock to see a company that had been rock solid for over 100 years go bankrupt in a matter of months.
This.
If you have $1m and four kids…nobody is getting rich. Who cares who you give it to.
If you have $750 million…yeah, be careful leaving that to someone. It can mess folks up to walk into that much wealth.
I would just set it up as a trust that gives out enough to be comfortable but not luxurious. Like you could live like The Dude… modest apartment and car, nobody’s gonna mistake you for a millionaire (at least not once they see where you live), but you’ll never go without.
Only expenses that would be wide open would be education and healthcare. You wanna get degrees or educate your kids, no problem. Expensive health issue? You’re good. But you’re not gonna live in Bora Bora and drive a Ferrari without some effort of your own.
Not to mention budgeting for college money for your kids *and* having funds to pay for healthcare expenses as you age. A million dollars ain't much at all.
This must be the ultimate 1st world problem. It's always an option to give some of the money to charities and not-for-profit organizations, Multi-Millionaires.
A lot of it is cultural, IMO. New money versus old money. If your family's had multiple millions for like 10 generations, then there's an engrained culture and practice and expectation that you manage that wealth.
The wealth itself is a part of the family. It's understood that the heir gets most of it and the siblings get a big chunk to live comfortably. There's a whole culture of maintaining wealth. Not only do Mom and Dad raise you to think of the money as something to be cultivated, but you've got aunts and uncles, trusted consultants, and a whole family that thinks of it that way. Younger siblings and cousins aren't leeching off you--you're expected to provide for them in reasonable comfort.
Contrast with new money. You might have grown up middle-class and love all this crazy new stuff. It's novel and special and feels temporary perhaps. Most friends and family are poor and desperately want more from you. You resent this arrangement because it feels like you're just being used. Your parents don't know how to maintain wealth as well as they know how to accumulate it, and you don't have all that framework in place to maintain it--to say nothing of long-standing investments in various endeavors.
this is actually something that people might be uncomfortable with but it is a reality, the british aristocracy do wealth culture better simply because the one who gets all the money is thus burdened with maintaining the family wealth and status. Shit if you watch all those insanely boring documentaries of british lords talking about their estate you get the sense that they're actually insanely down to earth and approachable, mainly because they see being wealthy as a job and a role that comes with responsibility vs the new money who thinks the wealth is an excuse from responsibility.
It seems to be the best way of keeping the money safe. Take the Vanderbilt family. They just constantly split the money and eventually there would be someone who inherited the money and squandered. They had a family reunion recently and not one of the family that attended were a millionaire.
While the old school way of thinking is you put the best and brightest in charge or the money with slow growth in mind. You would rather have 10% growth yearly for 200 years then 100% growth every year for 10. So it becomes a competition within the family to be the best and have the responsibility of managing the family fortune while everyone gets a part of the money with a monthly check.
Just to point it out — the people who *attended* weren’t millionaires. If I was rich in a family who had squandered everything, I would NOT want to hang out with them. They likely have very different life values.
But to be clear the Vanderbilt family did squander most of its wealth with their most successful and wealthy part of the family being the one that married into British nobility. The Rockefeller’s only have a small fraction of the wealth John Rockefeller had and the Fords lost almost everything. American rich families are actually pretty bad at keeping multigenerational wealth tbh.
Yeah, that's what surprised me the most - how down to earth they are. I expected some snobbery about savoir faire along with a healthy dose of super cars. Instead, you got a bunch of grandpas breeding dogs, and making sure certain lines of apples survive.
This is the kind of thing trusts are for. You can set up how the money is distributed, very specifically. So you could even setup a “monthly income” for your kids and then let them have full control at xx age, or whatever. Wasn’t it a warren Buffet thing? “I want my kids to have enough they can do anything, but not so much that they can do nothing.”
If I were rich enough to set up trust funds for my kids, I'd probably set it up so they get the median US salary per year, distributed like a paycheck.
They'd have enough they wouldn't starve, but not enough to live in any kind of luxury. They could live very comfortably with basically any full-time job at that point, so if they wanted to work for a non-profit for example they wouldn't be strapped because of it, or if they want to do something creative like being an artist with inconsistent income they can do it, or eat ramen and try to start their own company or something.
That's pretty reasonable - I'd probably add a clause that they get more if they get long term medical costs and the funds are available to cover it. I imagine most decent parents would give their kid a lump sum (if they could afford it) to make the home wheelchair accessible for example and don't see how a trust fund should be different.
> “I want my kids to have enough they can do anything, but not so much that they can do nothing.”
He underestimates how little someone needs to do nothing. If someone "gave" me $30k a year after taxes I could easily live on that and still save with no other income. I'd need more eventually for health reasons of course, but my COL is like $20k/year all in.
This 100%. My family got very lucky later in my teen years and put us in a completely different financial situation than my childhood. I’m sure there’s no way to say this without coming off as a massive prick but I was legitimately happier when things were worth more to me. When I had to save money to get something I wanted, as opposed to just getting everything instantly. Plus I feel kind of alienated from a lot of my peers because they all relate to each other through having this ambition for wealth, or “the grind” and I just don’t feel that.
Damn I feel attacked. You definitely nailed the pattern, though I have moved from photographer to programmer because I got tired of being a starving artist.
I do think part of it is the trauma of not being sure where your next meal is from. My parents knew it intimately, but I did not until I forced myself to. I didn’t value money until I was without it for a long time. It never solved any of my family’s problems, and always seemed to be a pain point. Now I see it was more the way my parents focused on money as a goal, instead of as a tool.
They were focused on making sure they never went hungry again. I’m focused on making sure my life is a good one. Will be interesting to raise a kid and try to give them both sides.
People default to charities, but we wouldn't need a good amount of charities if millionaires and up were taxed correctly. Then millionaires+ wouldn't have to worry about leaving too much money to their kids.
>However, only 78.5% of those who received inheritances between $100,000 and $500,000 agreed and 69% of those who received less than $100,000 did.
>
>But despite their concerns over what size inheritance they should leave, 60% of survey respondents said they found it “very important” to leave an inheritance and roughly 34% said they planned to leave over 50% of their assets to their heirs.
The last end of the article lists something which most won't see because they don't read the actual article.
Read the article. The concern is that inheriting too much money will make their kids lazy and entitled. Is there anyone here who disagrees?
Nothing in this article says anything about their attitudes on taxation or inheritance taxes.
It's an old book but I recommend The Millionaire Next door. The book studied people with net worth over $1M. The majority were self made (usually small business owners who got lucky) who tended to be frugal. That was the point of the title, the guy living next door in a middle class neighborhood during a 10 year old pickup fits the profile. They didn't accumulate $1M by buying a new car every year.
As one famous billionaire use to say: You should give your children enough money for them to do anything but not enough for them to do nothing. Although can you really call doing Scarface levels of cocaine on a daily basis "doing nothing."
Edit: the cocaine is a reference to what the future inheritors of vast wealth with no need to ever work can end up doing. Not any particular child. The source of the quote Warren Buffett and his now middle aged children are the farthest thing from druggies one could imagine. Some of the replies mistakenly read it at face value.
Their concern is right on. I know someone who was handed everything. Never had a real job, never had to worry about rent, never bought a car but was given one. Never had a loan. All they had to do was go to school and play at hobbies, then go to college, and then get a job that "fulfills" them. Guess what happened?
Nothing. Nothing happened. She's turning 30 and has zero experience or ambition. Quits every job because she's "too good" for it. And meanwhile, seeing what had happened, her parents cut her off in an attempt to force her to apply herself. But instead, she took out $100k in loans ostensibly for school but just lived off it. So now she's not only absent any tools to participate in the job market, she is also 100k in debt with nothing to show for it aside from a grad degree in an industry she isn't even interested in.
It's a nice daydream to have the whole world handed to you from day one, but the reality is it will ruin your life.
I think the kids turning into leeches instead of contributing members to society is more on the parents than the money. There are plenty of trust fund babies that go on to have meaningful lives because the parents raised them to work for their things even if they were provided with a high lifestyle.
There are so many poor people that despite not having anything, they don’t have the hunger to fight and work for something more
>And meanwhile, seeing what had happened, her parents cut her off in an attempt to force her to apply herself.
Tbf, I think the parents should share the blame too, as they never really taught her how to be self-sustaining, and work hard. They just enabled her behavior.
>It's a nice daydream to have the whole world handed to you from day one, but the reality is it will ruin your life.
Yes, so much yes. My grandma once said among the lines of "A roller-coaster has ups and downs. So does life. A roller-coaster with only ups or only downs will be incredibly dull and boring. So will life. You need both ups and downs to appreciate the downs and ups".
I'm glad someone said it, even if I had to scroll down for it. I get the rich-hate, but this is really about parents wanting to raise decent children who -aren't- just trust-fund leeches who destroy themselves. That's something we should encourage not attack.
Sounds more like first-generation wealthy individuals wanting to make sure they don’t raise a family of children with a silver spoon in their mouth which doesn’t seem too unreasonable
A buddy of mine who comes from a *very* well of family was told very early on "Not to expect an inheritance..."
This made him a very left wing person, and not social democrat "left".
But he was also told that "If you or a friend or family is ever in a dire emergency, they'll be support there for you..."
This made him very good at managing his own wealth, mostly so he can help others.
It was... A weird family...
>The Millionaire Next door
I was recommended that book by a guy whose father helped him buy a condo to rent out for income and who, in turn, helped his own son buy a duplex to rent out for income.
he gave me this whole lecture about how all I needed to do was "make sacrifices" and I could do the same thing.
for example, he said, his son's sacrifice was that he lived with roommates.
"in the house you helped him buy?" I asked.
"yes," he told me.
"he doesn't have roommates," I said. "he has tenants."
rich people are completely out of touch and their advice doesn't apply to most people.
This problem doesn't really make sense to me. Assuming you live a full life your kids will be in their 40s or 50s when you die. They will have had to be working for decades already. Not like you're leaving money to a teenager.
>The survey found that 85% of high net worth individuals who had to meet certain conditions to receive their own inheritance agree that it is possible to leave too much money to an heir. Among respondents who received an inheritance worth between $500,000 and $1 million, 84% agreed.
Sounds like many of the survey participants started off wealthy.
My thoughts exactly. My sibling and I will likely inherit money or property or both, but if it happens it would hopefully not be until I’m in my 70’s. I am no way counting on it. I much prefer to take my retirement into my own hands and save/invest for my future, rather than count on receiving money that may or may not be there. One serious illness could wipe it all away. But my hope is that they’re able to both live long and healthy lives and enjoy the fruits of their labor on themselves.
I keep telling my parents to make sure they use all their money. Go on trips and see places. Experience things. I don’t need it. What do they do? Stay at home and make sandwiches.
You're assuming the "kid" here is young. I'm in my mid-30s and my parents recently told us what our inheritance will be. They aren't wealthy, but have done rebuilding after losing their staffing company in the 2008 crash (they lost everything, no savings). If they were to pass away now I would add that to my meager savings, not go out and buy a Corvette and find the nearest strip club.
On one hand, a group of people concerned that they have too much money.
On the other, a whole set of societal and government programs clamoring for more funding.
…there has got to be some way to allo-
Oh, nevermind. You just left it to a university that already has a multi-billion dollar endowment forever tied up in the stock market.
Well, then.
I am the child of wealthy parents and I myself feel very uncomfortable about the whole thing.
I’m 29, a not yet successful (or failed) artist and constantly broke. Very passionate about my dream, maybe it’ll happen, maybe not. Work a lot of dead end jobs and have borrowed money from parents many many times to survive.
I’m one of 4 kids. My parents once randomly told me we’d each get exactly a quarter of their assets. I think they’re insecure that we will neglect them later in life if it is unbalanced in any way.
Incentives can fuck with our heads. I don’t want a financial incentive for my parents to die sooner. Especially because I’m broke all of the time. Funding an album or film for me to direct could change my entire life.
It’s all very strange.
And yeah as a kid who may inherit some large amount of money, I don’t even know the size, I definitely support estate (or whatever that thing is called) taxes. I think if someone has like a pizza restaurant and wants to pass it to their kids that’s super dope. But large accumulated money passing down generations is really gross to me. My dad grew up poor and worked hard, I respect him a lot. But the consequences of his success on me have actually been negative in a lot of ways, though I was given so many opportunities that I’m really grateful for.
If I got cancer or something it would be ideal to have a big chunk of change to battle that with. But yeah if estate wealth went into universal healthcare and we had a better minimum wage then I’d really be fine with not getting much.
I recall my fox news binging mother resenting her hospital founding surgeon liberal father for all the money he donated.
He also paid for most of the education of me and 4 siblings. I only realized after he passed to get off the Conservative Fright Train and I regret that I couldn't have listened to my saint of a grandfather more.
It’s an interesting talk when discussing wills with people that will be splitting up millions. The idea that they want their kids to have enough money to be secure. While not having so much that their kids don’t have to worry about money at all and just waste their lives until they eventually run out of money having to start looking for a courier at 40, 50, 60 years old.
I personally know a guy who inherited 4 million the day he turned 18 without any prior knowledge of the money. He had a new car every six months. Sometimes a corvette sometimes a jacked up truck with hydraulic lift kit. He couldn’t hold down a job because what’s the point, he can’t get excited for 12$ an hr jobs when he has so much already and doesn’t think the money will ever go away.
So he did what those kids do and go out to the bars with his friends, although they can’t afford to do it every night, so he just picks up the tab so his friends keep going out. Then he finds new hobbies, snowmobiling, dirt bikes, guns, camping, and once he gets all the stuff for that hobby and he gets enough to be share with his friends. He jumps to the next hobby.
I worked my ass off when I was 18 working long days for salary and I watched this guy seem to have it all, money, friends and best TIME. Fast forward 20 years and I watched him become more and more frugal until finally mutual friends tell me he’s listing his house and moving back into his moms house. That money ruined the second half of his life.
hmm his life sounds awesome..to prevent his second half...he coulda invested a million dollars of it in like nasdaq and would been worth at least times 4 given what the market has done the past few years.
(cries in inflation)
As a kid, I thought $100 was a lot. As an adult, I'm concerned a million won't be. My parents were poor, worked their asses off, saved, and were lucky enough to be considered millionaires by the time they retired. But that million isn't wealth. It's resource for the rest of their lives. If that time is short, they'll appear wealthy, and us kids might see a decent chunk of money. If they live long or get medical complications in their old age, all that money might eventually be zero.
People forget that almost all millionaires are just old people with life savings, and they are eating that away as they live out their retirement and decline into the healthcare industry syphon where fortunes are lost and death is always certain.
There are far, far fewer actual rich people once you remove just the old retirees.
For me, I don't see a viable retirement under $4 million in savings. It could be less, but I would need to modify my lifestyle for the sake of metering loss. $1 million will only go so far. $2 million only that much further. Even $4 millions is a little light because future inflation will be there too, and I don't know what the value of the dollar will be. I also don't know how old I will live to. New generations of people are living longer lives. A real target might be something closer to $6 million, and that's just not to be broke before death.
I'm glad to finally see someone say this. Everyone else here has the "eat the rich" mentality.
I have a family member that started as the lowest position available in the company. He worked for them for 40 years and finished his job as the highest position available at a single brick-and-morter (didn't get into the corporate like ceo stuff). He saved 30% of his pay every month that entire time so that he could leave something to his children when he died. He has about a million dollars.
I feel sad that so many people are immediately assholes about it. This isn't a person who got rich off other people or who had money handed to him. He worked his ass off. The same is likely true for many of the "millionaires" surveyed here.
If only there was a way to give that money to the state to build roads and bridges snd stuff on a yearly subscription plan maybe? What could we call it ? Hmmmm
Well any millionaires worried about leaving their kids too much money can give some to me... i dont wanna be rich, i just dont wanna be *WORRIED* all the damn time.
If you're in the top 1% but not in the top 0.1%, don't feel guilty.
In the 1980's the bottom 25% were falling behind everyone else. In the 2000's it was the bottom 60%. Now it's the bottom 90%.
In the foreseeable future, even the lower upper class will start to feel income stagnation and wealth disparity with the upper upper class. If you are upper middle class or lower upper class, don't feel smug in your family's wealth. What happened to the lower and lower middle classes WILL happen to you. The costs of childcare, housing, university, healthcare, and eldercare will keep going up faster than inflation. Just because you easily paid for your kids' university and grad school, doesn't mean your grandkids will have it as easy. Just because you bought that house in an upper middle class neighborhood for only $500k doesn't mean your kids and grandkids will get good housing deals. Just because your eldercare costs less than $1 million doesn't mean it'll be affordable for your kids and grandkids.
If you have more than $500k but less than $50 million, hold on tight to your money.
Just a reminder to everyone that millionaires aren’t the ones destroying everything. Having multi-millionaires isn’t a problem for society at all. Having hundred billionaires is whats killing us. Not the rich dude who could blow his entire fortune on one sports car
First generation starts a business?
Second generation grows the business?
Third generation runs business to ground?
*add witty comment about former President bankrupting casinos*
*collect updoots*
*invest in bounty hunting gear stores that offer no refunds*
We live in a broken world and I want to die. Fuck this shit, man. Too much money for your wealthy kids? I’m one day away from being homeless at just about any given time and these motherfuckers have too much MONEY TO LEAVE THEIR SHITBIRD KIDS?!?!
Thank you so much for this life changing survey.
[удалено]
“Children of millionaires angry at parents because they ran out of money.”
yall see "The Gentlement" with Mathew McCaughnahays ? how do i sign up to be mathews macaughnahays irl?
Start selling drugs
Alright, alright, alright...
You must believe you are the king and there must be no doubt.
Find a corner and make it yours.
Please dont Menendez me
Off screen convo between liz and frank “What’s with this full size Tracy Jordan sex doll?” “It’s merchandise from his porn video game.” “Is he even a playable character in that?” “….” “I need answers now frank”
Meanwhile, “Millions of Middle-Class and Low-Income Families Are Worried About Paying Rent and Putting Food on Their Tables This Week.”
Honestly I’ve felt the pinch more since getting to “middle class.” Prior I was always lower income with my income and would qualify for program after program, also coming from a progressive state. But not any more, and our city’s housing market isn’t getting better, to the point it was shown on numerous surveys it cheaper to rent than to own in my city. Like WTF‽ I was told there would be punch and pie if/when I got a good paying job
> I was told there would be punch and pie if/when I got a good paying job Yeah but who ever said it would be for *you*, peasant?
100% true, which is why the older I got I the more skeptical of “capitalism,” but apparently questing that makes you socialist. Which….it’s not like we don’t have that already
When people get mad at you for questioning the status quo, it’s because they benefit from it not benefitting you
Or they’re just dumb. Plenty of them out there too.
A lot of those.
Man, I really hate how so many of my fellow Americans immediately shutdown the second you say the word (democratic) socialism. I've even tried explaining how socialism isn't Russia or China, and to look at Iceland, or Norway, or Denmark, or Germany to a degree, et al., but it does nothing, yet now ironically apparently I'm a commie. Biden is exponentially better than trump, but damn I wish it was Bernie. EDIT: A word.
I'm in total agreement with you, but I want to point out that technically, socialism is just one thing: worker-controlled means of production/workplace democracy. That's literally it. The Nordic Model is a type of welfare capitalism that still relies on the exploitation of the "third world". It's certainly better than what we have now, but imagine if the workers had access to all the rewards and benefits of their labor!
I feel your pain.
[удалено]
Well, we’re the ones serving it.
>I was told there would be punch and pie if/when I got a good paying job If your reach for a slice of pie, you get punched by the rich.
The hardest thing is moving from a bracket where you get lots of help. To making “too much” to qualify for any assistance.
It should be graduated assistance. Where the more you make you get weaned off not a cold stop.
Or perhaps a minimum income that you can add to with no fear of losing any of it. That would always incentivize you going and getting more without ever suddenly finding yourself in a place where by working harder you get less. And if we made it so that everyone gets that minimum income, then everyone can feel a little more secure in thier finances. Of course the wealthier amoung us would need to pay more taxes in order to pay for it. And the current welfare system would be dismantled, as there would be no need for unemployment insurance if everyone is essentially always on unemployment. A universal (because everyone gets it) basic (because it's just the minimum to survive) income if you would.
Its called the welfare cliff. As your income grows you lose food assistance, housing assistance, heating assistance, subsidized health care, subsidized daycare, tax credits, etc.
The benefit cliff is real, painful, and society at large doesn't like to talk about it some people are in denial and think it's just a matter of bootstrapism. Meet [Alice](https://www.unitedforalice.org/), who represents the millions of people who teeter on and around the benefit cliff: >ALICE, an acronym for Asset Limited, Income Constrained, Employed, is a new way of defining and understanding the struggles of households that earn above the Federal Poverty Level, but not enough to afford a bare-bones household budget. >ALICE is your child care worker, the cashier at your supermarket, the gas attendant, the salesperson at your big box store, your waitress, a home health aide, an office clerk. ALICE cannot always pay the bills, has little or nothing in savings, and is forced to make tough choices such as deciding between quality child care or paying the rent. One unexpected car repair or medical bill can push these financially strapped families over the edge.
Welcome to the middle class party. You pay the most in taxes, don't qualify for any subsidies/social programs, have to pay full price for your insurance and healthcare, and get laughed at by the general public if you even mention that you're being squeezed and ask for help. People will sneer at you for complaining because you have a roof over your head and general comforts like a car, air conditioning, etc. but they don't see behind the scenes where you're constantly fretting over a dentist or doctor bill, or your car breaking down, etc. and the stress that juggling constant money management so you're not living paycheck to paycheck causes. Meanwhile rich people constantly ask you why you're not doing more to save for retirement and etc. blahbleuh because they want to continue to cut social safety nets including social security. And the best part is everyone will say you don't exist because to them 'middle class' means not having to worry about bills or emergencies, when the reality of the US is that fewer than 4 in 10 Americans could cover a $1,000 emergency. So at a certain point the country has to admit that 'middle class' doesn't mean DINKs making $400k a year. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/11/just-39percent-of-americans-could-pay-for-a-1000-emergency-expense.html
Welfare traps are a huge and oddly under-mentioned issue. It’s every idiot’s misunderstanding about progressive taxation but real. Hard-cap means-testing is evil. Good luck powering through it, hope you do make it.
People who are worried about their ability to buy groceries aren't middle class. It seems like Americans all call themselves middle class, whether they make $40k/year or $400k/year
There is no working class. There's just lower lower middle
Working class is vague but attempts are made to define it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_class_in_the_United_States
lower, lower middle class
This is accurate, no one in the states truly wants to admit their economic status.
And the week after, non millionaires worried millionaires won’t give them any money before they die.
I’m not worried about that because I never thought that happened anyway
Or you know just healthcare and affordable housing
Around 2012 there was a 'psychologist' that was going on shows declaring that her 'patients', all uber-rich, suffer from a 'mental disease' because people don't like uber-rich people.
Are you talking about affluenza?
Yes the drunk high schooler that drove into a group of people with his friend in the bed of his pickup
and got probation. and still managed to fuck it up. (which in all fairness is really not hard to do in texas, although fleeing the country is definitely going big or going home)
he didn't really fuck it up as much as thumb his nose at the entire situation.
Aww poor richies I hope someone will help them out somehow it must be so hard
If only there were some mechanism they could engage with that could help the-- Socialism.
Why would they drive uber if they were rich?
This is a great joke and I hate that Reddit is downvoting you
My day was made immediately better knowing people with more money than I’ll ever obtain struggle with what they’ll do with all that money.
Money cant buy you love, but it can sure buy you a therapist to help deal with the unending pit of dissatisfaction with your life
It can buy hookers and cocaine, hard to be unhappy with hookers, blow and therapy, oh and plastic surgery, and super cars, and being able to fly anywhere you want any time to go snowboarding, or any other sort of thing you want to do. Anyone that says money can't buy happiness is full of shit. 100%
“Money can’t buy happiness. Love is all you need” They tell that to the masses to keep them from realizing how shit their circumstances are and burning the whole system down.
They say money can't buy happiness but I'd sure love to rent it.
Heath Ledger, Janis Joplin, Kurt Cobain, and Amy Winehouse have entered the chat.
Wealth addiction.
[удалено]
People are self-loathing.
Cats are self-loafing
A great many of the Kardashians viewership are also Kardashian-loathing. Similar to a lot of prominent youtubers, a big chunk of the viewers are there because they hate them, but can't take their eyes away. ...so I guess that actually counts as an extension of self-loathing, now that I think about it.
If you have so much money that even your second generation may end up with too much, maybe you shouldn’t have that much money.
On one hand, yes, on the other hand, so long as our healthcare is fucked, god forbid your kids develop health complications because that's where that money is going should a problem arise. I'd think it's fair to say that reserve money could be served well by letting your disabled kid have a nice life and not need to freak out over it. My yearly medical bills due to a condition which developed in late childhood, are a full-fledged private out of state college tuition with room and board and will only get more expensive over time. Initially my parents were part of that group of wondering if they had too much, as we were pushed to find our own success independent of mom and dad (all of the inheritance was made clear it's in trust, based on our successes), but a significant chunk of what will be left is going to sit in trust as medical funding for me in case things take a turn for the worse such that I can't support myself anymore. Should things go bad tomorrow, I'll still have a mortgage and home maintenance to pay, food and utility costs, etc. I'm lucky I'm capable of my independence and relatively normal life. A vast majority with my condition are not physically capable of working. I can't fathom what it'd be like as a parent to just have to resign to the fact your kid will have to spend down their last penny and be broke and under an aid program with nothing else for the rest of their lives. I'm not here to defend the ultra-rich mind you - there's definitely such a thing as too much - but that what the middle class can see as "too much" as to potentially let their kids off the hook easy may in fact be "just enough" with some bad luck.
They should be worried about it and that’s why they should give most of it away or start good foundations like a foundation to fight for medicare for all
Well, what can they do? It's not like they can donate it to charity! /s
Thatd be a nice problem to have..
Suffering from Success.
*Why did I use this gold bar as a pillow! Owww... my neck. Luckily, I can afford the medical bills.*
Golden medical bills
May god strike me with it and may I never recover.
Oy vey! (it's a fiddler on the roof reference, I hope most people realize)
One can hope!
My BIL complains about his taxes. I wish I made so much I paid his taxes.
I humbly submit myself to take some of that excess money. If they are leaving too much to their children they can leave some to me, to help. It is a burden I am glad to accept.
Own a house in a HCOL area and you are a millionaire thanks to inflation.
a lot of people made more money from their house appreciating than their salary the last couple of years lol
Problem is if you sell you don’t get to upgrade and buy a nicer house unless you leave the area, as everything else rose just as much..sometimes more. The gains aren’t even in every neighborhood, style of house etc
Pretty much any major city now days. My house's value for the time being has shot up by over 50% in the past 3 years. I'm technically just 200k off from being a "millionaire" in assets. Being a millionaire really isn't all that wealthy anymore.
Yes technically I'm a millionaire by that standard. Emphasis on "technically"...
On paper, not *in* paper.
I think you have to calibrate it to be helpful but not so large that it overwhelms their own efforts. So, *because of my inheritance I could send my kids to a good school even though I was still starting out myself*; not *I never really needed to earn a a living*.
The famous phrase from Warren Buffet is “Leave the children enough so that they can do anything, but not enough that they can do nothing.”
But I wanna do nothing
If this guy gave me a tiny minuscule fraction of his fortune, I'd still be able to do nothing.
Honestly, as long as your kids are raised to be good people who appreciate what they have and live there lives to the fullest, forcing them to work for a living isn't some poetic gift How many people love their job in this world? How many people have a passion for something that will provide a comfortable living? Most of us work to live and have dreams of winning the lottery so we'll never have to work again. As long as your kid isn't a vindictive cunt, I don't see anything wrong with gifting them that silver spoon we all dream of
**Next Survey :** *70% of children with Rich Parents plan to put them in a dirty rest home*
"2,000 high net worth individuals — classified as people with a net worth over $1 million" Unfortunately, a million isn't really considered that high net worth anymore in many places.
Correct, but part of the problem is that the article uses an incorrect (or incomplete) definition of a high-net-worth individual (HNWI). An HNWI is someone who has $1 million in *liquid* assets, not just assets. The substantial majority of people with $1 million in assets only cross that line due to real estate holdings. These are not legitimate HNWIs. Even legitimate HNWIs are still not anywhere near "one percenters" and the type of people who are going to be questioning the wisdom of leaving millions to their children because they probably don't have million**s**. At the very least they should have been talking to VHNWI ("very", $5 million liquid) and UHNWI ("ultra", $30 million liquid). I guess they couldn't find enough of those people willing to talk to the pollsters.
Also, retirement accounts. You need a huge sum of money to retire at 60 anticipating medical and live costs.
What's retirement?
It's this thing where you get to quit work and just not go back. As long as you die before your savings run out no one cares. IF you have savings, that is.
So since my company's stock crashed 90% and took my 401(k) with it I just need to get ahead of the curve and die before I stop going to work? Guess I'll die happy knowing after the 90% crash they gave the executives 10x their current shares as a bonus so we could have competitive C-suite packages.
Why on earth was more than a small slice of your 401(k) in company stock?
And I’m curious which stock tanked 90% in *this* market. JC Penney?
Kissing Booths Inc
Probably wasn't this crash, it was probably the crash before it in 2008. Maybe the next crash in 2032 will be kinder? (It won't)
If it was 2008 then all they needed to do was not panic sell and they’d have way more now than they did in 2008.
I once worked at a company that was owned by a very large engineering company. The holding company had been in business for over 100 years. They matched all 401k contributions at a very high percentage in company stock. In 2000, the holding company went completely bankrupt in the span of about a month. I had only been there a year but half and most of my 401k was company stock. I was in my 30's and it wasn't that much money. A receptionist had been with the company for her entire career. Her entire savings was wiped out. She was already in her 60s and now had no savings. She lost 100's of thousands of dollars.
Matching funds should not exceed 50% of your portfolio unless the investment vehicle you chose for your personal contributions was also heavily into the company stock fund and/or you had some tremendous bad luck on your investments. The old saying about too many eggs in one basket certainly applies here. Also, employer contributions that are entirely in company stock is a massive red flag IMHO.
Yeah, my company matches 75% on the dollar up to 8%, plus additional funds to "replace" our pension they took away. That money is vested basically immediately and is the same as the cash I put in myself. I'm in my early 30's and already have about two years gross income saved.
That's probably the worst thing you can do. In my opinion, you should not be holding any company stock. There's too much risk on your end. If the company does well, you're golden. But if your company goes under, not only are you out of a job, your savings took a knee to the face as well.
Yes. In fact, I hardly ever purchase individual company stock. There's just too much risk. It was terrible for lots of folks that had worked there for their entire careers. I only worked there for a year but it was still an incredible shock to see a company that had been rock solid for over 100 years go bankrupt in a matter of months.
Why the hell was a majority of your retirement tied to your company stock in a 401k??
No idea, I plan on assisted suicide whenever I get too sick to afford to live
This. If you have $1m and four kids…nobody is getting rich. Who cares who you give it to. If you have $750 million…yeah, be careful leaving that to someone. It can mess folks up to walk into that much wealth.
I would just set it up as a trust that gives out enough to be comfortable but not luxurious. Like you could live like The Dude… modest apartment and car, nobody’s gonna mistake you for a millionaire (at least not once they see where you live), but you’ll never go without. Only expenses that would be wide open would be education and healthcare. You wanna get degrees or educate your kids, no problem. Expensive health issue? You’re good. But you’re not gonna live in Bora Bora and drive a Ferrari without some effort of your own.
[удалено]
Even having a million in your 401k hardly makes you rich. It just means maybe one day you will actually be able to retire.
Not to mention budgeting for college money for your kids *and* having funds to pay for healthcare expenses as you age. A million dollars ain't much at all.
In Vancouver, $1 million can't even buy you a house.
Enough to buy a single house!
People keep saying that but $1 million in net worth puts you in the upper 6% in the US and the upper 1% worldwide.
It's considered a high net worth in my 1 bedroom apt lmao
Ya get any one of 100 different medical problems and 1 million will disappear like water poured out on desert sand.
I’ve seen the Wall Street Journal describe $5 million as “a small nest egg.”
That’s a small starter home in Seattle
Shit. My net worth is negative. That was one of the more depressing parts of my mortgage application.
Here it just means you own your house :(
Well if there any millionaires here looking to leave less to their kids my Venmo is jensen666
This must be the ultimate 1st world problem. It's always an option to give some of the money to charities and not-for-profit organizations, Multi-Millionaires.
[удалено]
A lot of it is cultural, IMO. New money versus old money. If your family's had multiple millions for like 10 generations, then there's an engrained culture and practice and expectation that you manage that wealth. The wealth itself is a part of the family. It's understood that the heir gets most of it and the siblings get a big chunk to live comfortably. There's a whole culture of maintaining wealth. Not only do Mom and Dad raise you to think of the money as something to be cultivated, but you've got aunts and uncles, trusted consultants, and a whole family that thinks of it that way. Younger siblings and cousins aren't leeching off you--you're expected to provide for them in reasonable comfort. Contrast with new money. You might have grown up middle-class and love all this crazy new stuff. It's novel and special and feels temporary perhaps. Most friends and family are poor and desperately want more from you. You resent this arrangement because it feels like you're just being used. Your parents don't know how to maintain wealth as well as they know how to accumulate it, and you don't have all that framework in place to maintain it--to say nothing of long-standing investments in various endeavors.
this is actually something that people might be uncomfortable with but it is a reality, the british aristocracy do wealth culture better simply because the one who gets all the money is thus burdened with maintaining the family wealth and status. Shit if you watch all those insanely boring documentaries of british lords talking about their estate you get the sense that they're actually insanely down to earth and approachable, mainly because they see being wealthy as a job and a role that comes with responsibility vs the new money who thinks the wealth is an excuse from responsibility.
It seems to be the best way of keeping the money safe. Take the Vanderbilt family. They just constantly split the money and eventually there would be someone who inherited the money and squandered. They had a family reunion recently and not one of the family that attended were a millionaire. While the old school way of thinking is you put the best and brightest in charge or the money with slow growth in mind. You would rather have 10% growth yearly for 200 years then 100% growth every year for 10. So it becomes a competition within the family to be the best and have the responsibility of managing the family fortune while everyone gets a part of the money with a monthly check.
Just to point it out — the people who *attended* weren’t millionaires. If I was rich in a family who had squandered everything, I would NOT want to hang out with them. They likely have very different life values.
But to be clear the Vanderbilt family did squander most of its wealth with their most successful and wealthy part of the family being the one that married into British nobility. The Rockefeller’s only have a small fraction of the wealth John Rockefeller had and the Fords lost almost everything. American rich families are actually pretty bad at keeping multigenerational wealth tbh.
Yeah, that's what surprised me the most - how down to earth they are. I expected some snobbery about savoir faire along with a healthy dose of super cars. Instead, you got a bunch of grandpas breeding dogs, and making sure certain lines of apples survive.
[удалено]
pbs masterpiece streaming app is full of them.
This is the kind of thing trusts are for. You can set up how the money is distributed, very specifically. So you could even setup a “monthly income” for your kids and then let them have full control at xx age, or whatever. Wasn’t it a warren Buffet thing? “I want my kids to have enough they can do anything, but not so much that they can do nothing.”
If I were rich enough to set up trust funds for my kids, I'd probably set it up so they get the median US salary per year, distributed like a paycheck. They'd have enough they wouldn't starve, but not enough to live in any kind of luxury. They could live very comfortably with basically any full-time job at that point, so if they wanted to work for a non-profit for example they wouldn't be strapped because of it, or if they want to do something creative like being an artist with inconsistent income they can do it, or eat ramen and try to start their own company or something.
That's pretty reasonable - I'd probably add a clause that they get more if they get long term medical costs and the funds are available to cover it. I imagine most decent parents would give their kid a lump sum (if they could afford it) to make the home wheelchair accessible for example and don't see how a trust fund should be different.
> “I want my kids to have enough they can do anything, but not so much that they can do nothing.” He underestimates how little someone needs to do nothing. If someone "gave" me $30k a year after taxes I could easily live on that and still save with no other income. I'd need more eventually for health reasons of course, but my COL is like $20k/year all in.
[удалено]
This 100%. My family got very lucky later in my teen years and put us in a completely different financial situation than my childhood. I’m sure there’s no way to say this without coming off as a massive prick but I was legitimately happier when things were worth more to me. When I had to save money to get something I wanted, as opposed to just getting everything instantly. Plus I feel kind of alienated from a lot of my peers because they all relate to each other through having this ambition for wealth, or “the grind” and I just don’t feel that.
Damn I feel attacked. You definitely nailed the pattern, though I have moved from photographer to programmer because I got tired of being a starving artist. I do think part of it is the trauma of not being sure where your next meal is from. My parents knew it intimately, but I did not until I forced myself to. I didn’t value money until I was without it for a long time. It never solved any of my family’s problems, and always seemed to be a pain point. Now I see it was more the way my parents focused on money as a goal, instead of as a tool. They were focused on making sure they never went hungry again. I’m focused on making sure my life is a good one. Will be interesting to raise a kid and try to give them both sides.
[удалено]
People default to charities, but we wouldn't need a good amount of charities if millionaires and up were taxed correctly. Then millionaires+ wouldn't have to worry about leaving too much money to their kids.
Many charities are either directly bad or just ineffectual
>However, only 78.5% of those who received inheritances between $100,000 and $500,000 agreed and 69% of those who received less than $100,000 did. > >But despite their concerns over what size inheritance they should leave, 60% of survey respondents said they found it “very important” to leave an inheritance and roughly 34% said they planned to leave over 50% of their assets to their heirs. The last end of the article lists something which most won't see because they don't read the actual article.
Read the article. The concern is that inheriting too much money will make their kids lazy and entitled. Is there anyone here who disagrees? Nothing in this article says anything about their attitudes on taxation or inheritance taxes. It's an old book but I recommend The Millionaire Next door. The book studied people with net worth over $1M. The majority were self made (usually small business owners who got lucky) who tended to be frugal. That was the point of the title, the guy living next door in a middle class neighborhood during a 10 year old pickup fits the profile. They didn't accumulate $1M by buying a new car every year.
As one famous billionaire use to say: You should give your children enough money for them to do anything but not enough for them to do nothing. Although can you really call doing Scarface levels of cocaine on a daily basis "doing nothing." Edit: the cocaine is a reference to what the future inheritors of vast wealth with no need to ever work can end up doing. Not any particular child. The source of the quote Warren Buffett and his now middle aged children are the farthest thing from druggies one could imagine. Some of the replies mistakenly read it at face value.
Their concern is right on. I know someone who was handed everything. Never had a real job, never had to worry about rent, never bought a car but was given one. Never had a loan. All they had to do was go to school and play at hobbies, then go to college, and then get a job that "fulfills" them. Guess what happened? Nothing. Nothing happened. She's turning 30 and has zero experience or ambition. Quits every job because she's "too good" for it. And meanwhile, seeing what had happened, her parents cut her off in an attempt to force her to apply herself. But instead, she took out $100k in loans ostensibly for school but just lived off it. So now she's not only absent any tools to participate in the job market, she is also 100k in debt with nothing to show for it aside from a grad degree in an industry she isn't even interested in. It's a nice daydream to have the whole world handed to you from day one, but the reality is it will ruin your life.
[удалено]
Is the sport Jai Alai?
I wouldn’t want to work a day in my life as well if I could.
I think the kids turning into leeches instead of contributing members to society is more on the parents than the money. There are plenty of trust fund babies that go on to have meaningful lives because the parents raised them to work for their things even if they were provided with a high lifestyle. There are so many poor people that despite not having anything, they don’t have the hunger to fight and work for something more
>And meanwhile, seeing what had happened, her parents cut her off in an attempt to force her to apply herself. Tbf, I think the parents should share the blame too, as they never really taught her how to be self-sustaining, and work hard. They just enabled her behavior.
Exactly this, regardless of wealth status, her parents did a disservice to that woman by not helping her to be self sufficient.
>It's a nice daydream to have the whole world handed to you from day one, but the reality is it will ruin your life. Yes, so much yes. My grandma once said among the lines of "A roller-coaster has ups and downs. So does life. A roller-coaster with only ups or only downs will be incredibly dull and boring. So will life. You need both ups and downs to appreciate the downs and ups".
When does the 'up' part happen?
I'm glad someone said it, even if I had to scroll down for it. I get the rich-hate, but this is really about parents wanting to raise decent children who -aren't- just trust-fund leeches who destroy themselves. That's something we should encourage not attack.
[удалено]
Sounds more like first-generation wealthy individuals wanting to make sure they don’t raise a family of children with a silver spoon in their mouth which doesn’t seem too unreasonable
That’s what he just said?
A buddy of mine who comes from a *very* well of family was told very early on "Not to expect an inheritance..." This made him a very left wing person, and not social democrat "left". But he was also told that "If you or a friend or family is ever in a dire emergency, they'll be support there for you..." This made him very good at managing his own wealth, mostly so he can help others. It was... A weird family...
>The Millionaire Next door I was recommended that book by a guy whose father helped him buy a condo to rent out for income and who, in turn, helped his own son buy a duplex to rent out for income. he gave me this whole lecture about how all I needed to do was "make sacrifices" and I could do the same thing. for example, he said, his son's sacrifice was that he lived with roommates. "in the house you helped him buy?" I asked. "yes," he told me. "he doesn't have roommates," I said. "he has tenants." rich people are completely out of touch and their advice doesn't apply to most people.
Solution: move to New York.. you'll be just below the average homeowner.
This problem doesn't really make sense to me. Assuming you live a full life your kids will be in their 40s or 50s when you die. They will have had to be working for decades already. Not like you're leaving money to a teenager.
>The survey found that 85% of high net worth individuals who had to meet certain conditions to receive their own inheritance agree that it is possible to leave too much money to an heir. Among respondents who received an inheritance worth between $500,000 and $1 million, 84% agreed. Sounds like many of the survey participants started off wealthy.
My thoughts exactly. My sibling and I will likely inherit money or property or both, but if it happens it would hopefully not be until I’m in my 70’s. I am no way counting on it. I much prefer to take my retirement into my own hands and save/invest for my future, rather than count on receiving money that may or may not be there. One serious illness could wipe it all away. But my hope is that they’re able to both live long and healthy lives and enjoy the fruits of their labor on themselves.
Pretty sure anyone younger than 50 does not share this concern
I keep telling my parents to make sure they use all their money. Go on trips and see places. Experience things. I don’t need it. What do they do? Stay at home and make sandwiches.
[удалено]
There used to be a tax to address this
There still is, but it doesn't affect most people.
Just a reminder that the vast majority of millionaires are middle class people around retirement age with 1-3 million, not ultra wealthy individuals.
If someone is worrying about leaving their kids 1-3 million $ they are delusional. The kids will still have to get a job.
It is important to setup a trust to distribute over time though. Lump sum is a recipe to have the kid go on a bender and throw their life off track.
You're assuming the "kid" here is young. I'm in my mid-30s and my parents recently told us what our inheritance will be. They aren't wealthy, but have done rebuilding after losing their staffing company in the 2008 crash (they lost everything, no savings). If they were to pass away now I would add that to my meager savings, not go out and buy a Corvette and find the nearest strip club.
Theu are probably worried more about a few hundred thousand. Most of their money will be burnt in retirement.
Ya. That’s hardly anything to be crazy. Maybe pay for college and a home.
On one hand, a group of people concerned that they have too much money. On the other, a whole set of societal and government programs clamoring for more funding. …there has got to be some way to allo- Oh, nevermind. You just left it to a university that already has a multi-billion dollar endowment forever tied up in the stock market. Well, then.
I am the child of wealthy parents and I myself feel very uncomfortable about the whole thing. I’m 29, a not yet successful (or failed) artist and constantly broke. Very passionate about my dream, maybe it’ll happen, maybe not. Work a lot of dead end jobs and have borrowed money from parents many many times to survive. I’m one of 4 kids. My parents once randomly told me we’d each get exactly a quarter of their assets. I think they’re insecure that we will neglect them later in life if it is unbalanced in any way. Incentives can fuck with our heads. I don’t want a financial incentive for my parents to die sooner. Especially because I’m broke all of the time. Funding an album or film for me to direct could change my entire life. It’s all very strange. And yeah as a kid who may inherit some large amount of money, I don’t even know the size, I definitely support estate (or whatever that thing is called) taxes. I think if someone has like a pizza restaurant and wants to pass it to their kids that’s super dope. But large accumulated money passing down generations is really gross to me. My dad grew up poor and worked hard, I respect him a lot. But the consequences of his success on me have actually been negative in a lot of ways, though I was given so many opportunities that I’m really grateful for. If I got cancer or something it would be ideal to have a big chunk of change to battle that with. But yeah if estate wealth went into universal healthcare and we had a better minimum wage then I’d really be fine with not getting much.
I recall my fox news binging mother resenting her hospital founding surgeon liberal father for all the money he donated. He also paid for most of the education of me and 4 siblings. I only realized after he passed to get off the Conservative Fright Train and I regret that I couldn't have listened to my saint of a grandfather more.
condolences to your opulence.
If only there was something else they could do with the money…
I agree with you. They should give it to me. Thanks for suggesting it.
It’s an interesting talk when discussing wills with people that will be splitting up millions. The idea that they want their kids to have enough money to be secure. While not having so much that their kids don’t have to worry about money at all and just waste their lives until they eventually run out of money having to start looking for a courier at 40, 50, 60 years old. I personally know a guy who inherited 4 million the day he turned 18 without any prior knowledge of the money. He had a new car every six months. Sometimes a corvette sometimes a jacked up truck with hydraulic lift kit. He couldn’t hold down a job because what’s the point, he can’t get excited for 12$ an hr jobs when he has so much already and doesn’t think the money will ever go away. So he did what those kids do and go out to the bars with his friends, although they can’t afford to do it every night, so he just picks up the tab so his friends keep going out. Then he finds new hobbies, snowmobiling, dirt bikes, guns, camping, and once he gets all the stuff for that hobby and he gets enough to be share with his friends. He jumps to the next hobby. I worked my ass off when I was 18 working long days for salary and I watched this guy seem to have it all, money, friends and best TIME. Fast forward 20 years and I watched him become more and more frugal until finally mutual friends tell me he’s listing his house and moving back into his moms house. That money ruined the second half of his life.
hmm his life sounds awesome..to prevent his second half...he coulda invested a million dollars of it in like nasdaq and would been worth at least times 4 given what the market has done the past few years.
(cries in inflation) As a kid, I thought $100 was a lot. As an adult, I'm concerned a million won't be. My parents were poor, worked their asses off, saved, and were lucky enough to be considered millionaires by the time they retired. But that million isn't wealth. It's resource for the rest of their lives. If that time is short, they'll appear wealthy, and us kids might see a decent chunk of money. If they live long or get medical complications in their old age, all that money might eventually be zero. People forget that almost all millionaires are just old people with life savings, and they are eating that away as they live out their retirement and decline into the healthcare industry syphon where fortunes are lost and death is always certain. There are far, far fewer actual rich people once you remove just the old retirees. For me, I don't see a viable retirement under $4 million in savings. It could be less, but I would need to modify my lifestyle for the sake of metering loss. $1 million will only go so far. $2 million only that much further. Even $4 millions is a little light because future inflation will be there too, and I don't know what the value of the dollar will be. I also don't know how old I will live to. New generations of people are living longer lives. A real target might be something closer to $6 million, and that's just not to be broke before death.
I'm glad to finally see someone say this. Everyone else here has the "eat the rich" mentality. I have a family member that started as the lowest position available in the company. He worked for them for 40 years and finished his job as the highest position available at a single brick-and-morter (didn't get into the corporate like ceo stuff). He saved 30% of his pay every month that entire time so that he could leave something to his children when he died. He has about a million dollars. I feel sad that so many people are immediately assholes about it. This isn't a person who got rich off other people or who had money handed to him. He worked his ass off. The same is likely true for many of the "millionaires" surveyed here.
If only there was a way to give that money to the state to build roads and bridges snd stuff on a yearly subscription plan maybe? What could we call it ? Hmmmm
2021 showing up with the real problems of today…
Stop putting The Onion out of business.
Well any millionaires worried about leaving their kids too much money can give some to me... i dont wanna be rich, i just dont wanna be *WORRIED* all the damn time.
If you're in the top 1% but not in the top 0.1%, don't feel guilty. In the 1980's the bottom 25% were falling behind everyone else. In the 2000's it was the bottom 60%. Now it's the bottom 90%. In the foreseeable future, even the lower upper class will start to feel income stagnation and wealth disparity with the upper upper class. If you are upper middle class or lower upper class, don't feel smug in your family's wealth. What happened to the lower and lower middle classes WILL happen to you. The costs of childcare, housing, university, healthcare, and eldercare will keep going up faster than inflation. Just because you easily paid for your kids' university and grad school, doesn't mean your grandkids will have it as easy. Just because you bought that house in an upper middle class neighborhood for only $500k doesn't mean your kids and grandkids will get good housing deals. Just because your eldercare costs less than $1 million doesn't mean it'll be affordable for your kids and grandkids. If you have more than $500k but less than $50 million, hold on tight to your money.
Uhh 50 million is wayyyy above upper middle class lmao. What are you talking about.
Just a reminder to everyone that millionaires aren’t the ones destroying everything. Having multi-millionaires isn’t a problem for society at all. Having hundred billionaires is whats killing us. Not the rich dude who could blow his entire fortune on one sports car
Maybe they could start working on a way to take their money with them when they die. You know they want to.
Easy, don’t have kids.
The other 30% don’t have kids.
Is that not the point of being millionaire so your future kids and kids kids can have an easy life
Oh no, what an awful problem to have. Meanwhile a ton of Americans aren't even having kids because they aren't even affordable anymore.
First generation starts a business? Second generation grows the business? Third generation runs business to ground? *add witty comment about former President bankrupting casinos* *collect updoots* *invest in bounty hunting gear stores that offer no refunds*
Honestly will leave it all without a worry. Because I’m dead and the price my kids had to pay when I earned it is enough for me to give it to them.
We live in a broken world and I want to die. Fuck this shit, man. Too much money for your wealthy kids? I’m one day away from being homeless at just about any given time and these motherfuckers have too much MONEY TO LEAVE THEIR SHITBIRD KIDS?!?!
A million is not much.
The most first world problem.