Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Friday, June 08, 2018

Well-off young people say they need money from relatives and friends to guarantee their golden years stay golden. At first glance, it may look like brazen entitlement: Sixty-three percent of affluent children between the ages of 18 and 22 say financial stability in retirement will depend on inheriting money. As in, the money their parents spent a lifetime accumulating -- or, given increasing income inequality, inherited themselves.

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

It's time for the class war to heat up and get real.

#1 | Posted by danni at 2018-06-08 10:50 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3


... Sixty-three percent of affluent children between the ages of 18 and 22 say financial stability in retirement will depend on inheriting money. ...

I am so happy that the recent Republican tax cuts went, in the majority, to the wealthy so that they can accumulate even more money to pass to their children who want to do nothing with their lives but live a life of ease off inherit money.

That is such a better use of tax cut money than, say, giving the majority of the tax cuts to the working middle class who need the extra money for the day-to-day raising of a family.

/sarcasm

#2 | Posted by LampLighter at 2018-06-08 11:00 AM | Reply

America is becoming a ridiculous farce of it's former greatness.

When the Greed Over People party kills social security and medicare, things will get desperate in the US.

#3 | Posted by 726 at 2018-06-08 11:00 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

This stat probably hasn't changed over time.

I could read the article first before saying that........

My point is that rich kids have always thought this way. I don't see that anything would change that perception today.

#4 | Posted by eberly at 2018-06-08 11:10 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2


@#4 ... My point is that rich kids have always thought this way. ...

Less than 40% of the millennials think that way, compared to more than 60% of Gen-Z.

So you could say, as you did, that rich kids have always thought that way, and you'd be right.

But if you look at the percentage of the rich kids who think that way, you'll see that it has had a significant increase with the so-called Gen-Z people.

#5 | Posted by LampLighter at 2018-06-08 11:16 AM | Reply

"Sixty-three percent of affluent children between the ages of 18 and 22 say financial stability in retirement will depend on inheriting money."

This reminds me of the pharmacy companies that are only seeing growth by raising the prices of their products, not by growing sales or delivering new products.

#6 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-06-08 04:55 PM | Reply

I thought all rich people planned to live off the money produced by what they owned.

#7 | Posted by Tor at 2018-06-08 05:11 PM | Reply

The boomers need to hurry up and die so all the money they sucked out of the economy with all their genius financial schemes can be circulated back into the economy by their kids.

#8 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-06-08 07:21 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2


@#8 ... be circulated back into the economy by their kids. ...

The best way to circulate money back into the economy is via an energetic middle-class.

Since fmr Pres Reagan's "trickle-down economics," there has been a significant transfer of wealth away from the middle class and towards the wealthy.

The latest tax cuts passed by the Republicans have only accelerated that transfer.

The best way to reverse the "genius financial schemes" of the baby boomers would be to find ways to start transferring wealth back to the middle class.

#9 | Posted by LampLighter at 2018-06-08 07:34 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

The more money you have the better investment advise you will receive.

Time and compound interest guarantee this plan so long as you can live off the interest and dividends alone. In fact you can pass it on to your children forever.

#10 | Posted by bayviking at 2018-06-08 07:45 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Advertisement

Advertisement

Being a rich kid, sitting around waiting for your inheritance, does that make you a Job Creator?

#11 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-06-08 08:26 PM | Reply

A lot of them will not get it. ---- happens. In my own case, my mother did a "reverse mortgage" on her house, which she was also neglecting to keep in good repair. I was hoping to purchase the house, and fix it up, but the city knocked it down. I will be fine, but I can imagine similar stories happening to these rich kids. They will NOT be getting what they hope to get.

#12 | Posted by MarcNBarrett at 2018-06-09 06:20 AM | Reply

If the only property you hold is a house, you do not belong to the rich inherited class.

#13 | Posted by bayviking at 2018-06-09 06:31 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Bay not the 1% but it kind of depends on the house. With the value of my moms house added to my own net worth I land in the top quintile so not quite what we talk about around here as far as being rich but nothing to cry about.

My hope is to sell my mom's house buy 3-4 less expensive houses in town and live off the rental income. If that were to happen today I could pretty easily be bringing in 3500-5000 a month in rental income. In fact if my mom passes and I get everything I would probably retire within a year

However my retirement planning does not count on that money because I have learned through hard life experience not to "count my chickens" etc. Plus my mom is fairly well off and in good health plus gets great insurance coverage through my dad's service. So I wouldn't be shocked if she out lives me.

#14 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2018-06-09 07:06 AM | Reply

There is no doubt that staying out from under landlord rents provides one a great amount of freedom. Being the landlord who earns in his sleep is even better. But what's happening to rents and wages is not good for the economy. The only fix is to tax all unearned income at a higher rate. This hasn't occurred to anyone in power. Most insist on the opposite.

#15 | Posted by bayviking at 2018-06-09 07:14 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#15

I have nothing against taxing all unearned income at a higher rate. However for a lot of middle class that might hurt more than it would help. Most of the folks I know have either a rental property or investments. They don't make a lot off either but it is their savings.

One friend had a small 2 bedroom condo. When he got married and had a kid they bought a new house but kept the condo as a rental. After maintenance and mortgage he makes maybe 1-2 thousand a year off it. He is mostly holding it till he can resell for profit or for retirement. Tax that money heavily and all you are doing is cutting into his retirement (and not even bringing much into the coffers).

Perhaps much like the personal deduction there could be a small deduction before the heavy unearned income tax kicks in. So little guys (like pretty much everyone in my circle) don't just watch their retirement planning get taxed away.

#16 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2018-06-09 07:35 AM | Reply

"I have nothing against taxing all unearned income at a higher rate. However for a lot of middle class that might hurt more than it would help. Most of the folks I know have either a rental property or investments. They don't make a lot off either but it is their savings. "

So raise taxes only on income over $1,000,000.? Your first million would have very low taxes, your second and more would have much higher taxes. That's something most people don't quite get about our tax rates, the highest tax rates don't apply to every dollar you earn until it reaches the marginal tax level, everything over that is taxed at the higher amount but none of the earnings before that are.

#17 | Posted by danni at 2018-06-09 11:51 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"Most of the folks I know have either a rental property or investments."

Knowing what economists say about rent seeking behavior, tell me why we shouldn't discourage it.

#18 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-06-09 02:39 PM | Reply

#18

Snoofy if no one rents property where do people live who can't afford to buy a house?

Also while I had never read what economist said about it before a quick google tells me while they are talking about landlords for the most part that is not what is being referred to as "rent seeking behavior". Most of the folks I know with rental property are barely making profit so they are not really taking surplus productivity from their tenants. Not to say plenty of landlords are not making a ton of money off their tenants but it is not the guy who upgraded his house and kept the old one as a saving/investment vehicle.

#17

Danni I know, I was talking about Bay's assertion that ALL unearned income should be taxed heavily. If you have a tiered system like income tax for it that would be great. It would still encourage savings through investment while discouraging excessive "rent taking" (thanks snoofy).

#19 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2018-06-09 03:21 PM | Reply

"Snoofy if no one rents property where do people live who can't afford to buy a house? "

You can't buy a house that's only offered for rent.
Who wins then?

#20 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-06-09 03:26 PM | Reply

When two working folks together can't afford to buy a place to live, the wealth from their labor is being stolen from them somewhere...legally. And has been for 45 years. People my age don't remember the time when one breadwinner could afford a home, car, furniture, and a family of 5. All without credit, except for the mortgage and possibly a small car loan.

Now reverse mortgages commercials are playing all day. With Tom Selleck hawking them, no less.

#21 | Posted by madscientist at 2018-06-09 03:39 PM | Reply

#20

So what is your solution?

If no one offers a place for rent then lots of homes on the market which brings the price down but you still need the down payment. So where do you live while saving it?

Also my buddy with the condo his area was killed in 2008 and it is just now getting back to what he paid for it. If he hadn't been renting it out for the past several years he would have lost close to 20k when he bought his new place. At this point if he had a tenant offer to buy it for what he paid 15 years ago he would probably sell in a heart beat.

My neighbor next door same problem he can't get his purchase price out of the house so is renting it right now. Each time the tenant moves out he puts it on the market. Last time it sat for 6 months before he gave up and went back to renting it. The market is happy to pay him 3k a month in rent but not 450k to buy. He honestly doesn't want to rent it out he really really wants to sell.

#22 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2018-06-09 03:55 PM | Reply

"So what is your solution?"

I'm saying, we should encourage home ownership, not people buying homes as investment properties.
This is a thing George W. Bush was right about.
(Except he wanted to use it to privatize Social Security.)

#23 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-06-09 04:26 PM | Reply

Oh I agree. There should be no tax advantages for owning rental property and the income earned should be taxed at least at the rate of sweat of brow labor if not more.

My only beef was the idea that ALL unearned income should be taxed heavily.

That discourages retirement investing which is really the only way to save for retirement (even a savings account will give you unearned income). I wouldn't even set the exemption as high as Danni suggested but there does need to be some allowance for middle class retirement savings. We want people to save for retirement, especially if SS will have to cut payments.

#24 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2018-06-09 06:14 PM | Reply

"My only beef was the idea that ALL unearned income should be taxed heavily."

I generally think what you earn shouldn't be taxed as hard as what you un-earn.

Taxing un-earnings less than earnings incentivizes un-earning. Only those rich enough to un-earn their income benefit from that.

#25 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-06-09 06:28 PM | Reply

Their parents will buy tax laws that make it more likely to happen.

#26 | Posted by SomebodyElse at 2018-06-10 11:38 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Rich Kids Are Counting on Inheritance to Pay for Retirement

F these punks

#27 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2018-06-10 12:09 PM | Reply

That is the difference between rich and wealthy. One generation makes a fortune, the next spends it. The richest families seldom survive as rich for three generations. Wealthy families stay wealthy.

#28 | Posted by docnjo at 2018-06-10 01:36 PM | Reply

Good thing rich kids have rich parents who paid politicians to kill the estate tax.

Now Trump's retarded children won't have to work in their lifetimes and can continue big animal hunting.

#29 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-06-10 01:48 PM | Reply

29

LOL.....you think the estate tax changes that? you think Trump's kids would have to ever work if there was an estate tax?

BTW, there still is an estate tax.

#30 | Posted by eberly at 2018-06-10 02:19 PM | Reply

#30 | Posted by eberly 40% as I remember. But that is why they have legacy accounts and trusts funds.

#31 | Posted by docnjo at 2018-06-11 06:56 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort