OT WSJ -- Does the estate tax hurt farmers and family businesses?

So, I take it that your children will NOT receive anything from you because you will donate everything to the government? You seem to think that anybody that has any money stole it from somebody else or that if someone has something it's because somebody else didn't get their fair share. You think the pie is one-sized. I think the pie is as big as the pie makers want it to be. There is not a finite supply of wealth only finite minds that can't grasp that. Like you say "it is not like the billionaires never give back" and "this is what a few honest billionaires are doing.: You imply that they TOOK something and those that don't give it back are dishonest.

It's only fair to confiscate wealth from families because the heirs MIGHT be unproductive leeches? Are you the one that decides? I understand your position perfectly and it's kind of frightening.

True, I have no dog in this fight, far from it. I just have a different sense of right and wrong than you do.

It's not, how did you get that from my post? But, how many people are the third or fourth generation on welfare? That's a symptom, not a cause. This venue's limitations prevent me from expounding on that thought. In a nutshell, I don't blame the people on welfare, they are in that situation for a reason.

Why not cancel the "Skateboard Museum", the African ball-washing lessons, etc. Liberals are the very meaning of "disingenuous:

That is just plain ignorant! I'm sure you can cite these statistics? I'll tell my church's food drive people to have fun at their social club, they fed over 500 families for Thanksgiving and more for Christmas, how many did YOU feed? I know how much you hate God and religion and the biggest insult I can say to you is "you are in my prayers".

I am not sure how well off I will be. If it is beyond a few mils, I will definitely leave something to charity.

I never said such a thing.

You are repeating stereotypes, that were conveniently supplied to you by the "billionaires on warpath".

Our society enabled them to be successful. So, it is honest to give something back.

As a matter of fact, as Steve B said, most or at least many, are such.

I do not have a dog in this fight either. I hope to have a dog in this fight one day. That, of course, may never materialize.

What I know is that I hope that my children will be mature persons in the sense of being able to use the money wisely, and if that happens, I will be happy to help them while I am still around, not just dump a bucketful of money on them when they become "older adults".

The future is tricky, of course, and who knows what it holds. I hope that my kids are able to become self supporting and responsible people.

Because you said so.

``Didn't you see in the last election how Republicans were going to cancel social Security, Medicare and unemployment checks? Is there anybody that doesn't see the generational dependence on government hand-outs? ''

That was the way it looked to me as well...

You're right, those two sentences should have been in separate paragraphs for better clarification.

In the run-up to Last November's elections, many Democrats stated that Republicans were going to cancel Social Security and Medicare. Do you need cites?

Wealth is confiscated by politicians and used as a carrot and a stick to buy votes and also to threaten withdrawal of all kinds of benefits like "Earned Income Credit", Skateboard museums, "The Grateful Dead Something-or-Another" And thousands of other wasteful spending instances.

I just don't believe in the Government's ability or right to wipe my ass, or anybody else's from womb to tomb. America has become a society of people that have no self reliance and no self responsibility. Some politicians like it this way and have greatly enriched themselves by this process. It's just wrong! I pity the next generation.

No cites needed, I have a good memory...

If you think that's wrong, just wait for the terror-hysteria than should start before the 2012 elections...

The talk was to start a self insured program something like an IRA but make it mandatory. e.g. a persons money goes into it as does the companies. It is guarded.

The idea was the next generation would better plan on after work days than many now. Companies in the past had retirements. Many of those canceled them. My Dad's retirement with AT&T was transferred to a baby Bell and in several years his retirement for over 40 years of work was canceled. He was full of foresight, living in the depression - and had a personal retirement he himself did by his own money.

Getting the US off SS would be good if a viable solution was there.

Mart>> >>>>> Not "give" it, they use it to buy votes and dependency on the >>>>> government.

My father told my when I was a kid, NOT to count on a dime of Social Security, that money is already been spent and the "lock box" is full of IOUs. He also said NOT to count on Medicare or any other Government program because the spending is unsustainable. Sage advice! For my parents, every dime they owned, and then some, WAS consumed with healthcare costs. They were "notch" babies and only received a fraction of their rightful Social Security. The Democrats instituted the "notch" and I'll never forgive them.

That was the question that I was answering.

If I own a small chunk of the American industry, it will continue getting paid dividends even if the currency devalues. As long as I am not overpaying, I should do okay over time.

Also, keep in mind that the bond market does not expect anything as dire as what Tom Gardner is prognosticating. Time will tell if the bond market or Tom is right, but I expect the outcome to be somewhere in the middle between them.

Interesting story.

Yep, Iggy is right, a prudent move for my investments at this time would be from 60/40 bond/stock to maybe 20/80 bond/stock.

But, that's just for while things stay normal. Our economy is a house of cards. I don't know when, but sooner than later seems likely, a couple of cards holding the whole pile up are going to be kicked out. Then my protfolio don't mean jack s#$%.

Karl

Agreed, all my retirement is in Vanguard. I hope you're right, you have a far more optimistic view of the future.

Karl

Actually, I do believe that America won't just go quietly into the night. We have the capacity that when we reach a certain point that people will roll-up their sleeves, cast aside the people and the policies that are destructive and get back to the core values that made America great. But, in the mean time, a lot of wealth will disappear. Kind of like hitting the "Reset" button on your computer and running an AV program, that last ten minutes of the spreadsheet and Word document will be gone, a total waste of time. All that has to happen is for America to come to the realization that Socialism is a bad idea and doesn't work. Depending on how long that takes is the key to how much suffering will happen.

Besides having money in mutual funds and other stocks, I have a relatively large part of assets in Berkshire Hathaway. I have long been a big admirer of Warren Buffett specifically. He thinks that the United States has a great way of "unlocking human potential" and that our economic future is very bright. His company plunked down 35 billion dollars to buy a railroad, a year ago.

I think that the United States is by far the best country to immigrate to, because of its respect of human life, tolerance, and rule of law.

I am also optimistic about our future, but not necessarily about the dollar exchange rate.

When I buy stocks, I do not tink as much about what will happen to their prices tomorrow, as I think about the stream of earnings that I will earn pro-rata.

I have no crystal ball, myself, and always been extra wary of inflation, but the bond market does not take that possibility too seriously.

Nevertheless, I own some put options on TLT (long term treasury ETF), that would rise in price if interest rates soar and bonds take a plunge. On balance, I would not become much richer if that happened, just less poorer.

To me, there is not much difference between questions "how to make money" and "how not to lose money", to me it is the same. If I can find something cheap, I buy it, otherwise I do not. As I said, prior to 2008, I had most of my money and my retirement money in money market.

The risk, to me, is all about how much I pay. If I buy two 30 lb rolls of Techallow 622 Inconel MIG wire for $40 each, there is not much risk. If I buy a Bridgeport CNC mill in unknown condition for $500, there is also not much risk. Similarly, if I buy stocks at 10-14 P/E, the risk is also not huge and the money making potential is good.

I have never chased the latest market fashions and that has a nice effect of keeping the risk down somewhat. Everything perceived to be safe, or popular, has its price bid up to the extent that the risk is just too much.

I know full well that in many financial circles, risk is understood as volatility, I studies this in business school and I disagree with that approach wholeheartedly. The risk in paying too much for something that is not worth it.

VEIEX Emerging Markets VMGIX Mid Cap Growth VISGX Small Cap Growth VFSVX All World Small Cap VFINX S & P index

I added the names of the mutual funds. You might note that two of these funds are for stocks that are not US stocks. So might be okay if only the US goes TU.

Dan

Actually, it's both.

The theory is that first one eliminates the dogs, so what remains is the behavior of what remains. The more the stock (or industry) in question varies, the more risk if one is somehow forced to sell at an awkward moment, but the more money one can make if one can afford to be patient.

Part of this patience is exactly your approach of not overpaying.

This is old hat. The classic book is "The Intelligent Investor: A Book of Practical Counsel" by Benjamin Graham. First published in 1934 and still in print, the most recent edition having an endorsement from Warren Buffet.

-- But, where are the investor's yachts?

Joe Gwinn

WITHIN one family.

If the children are productive, the gov't gets more tax money from the money they make with the inheritance. If they kids are not, the gov't gets sales tax from the things they buy while squandering the money. Why the hell should they get any more than either of those two tax situations?

If you inherited a productive farm, think what you could do with the money from it. Perhaps a start-up software company? Win/Win.

If they tax the s*it out of the farm you just inherited, you'd have to sell off the working parts to pay the taxes. The result is a loss to society (dead farm), a loss of income to you, a loss of jobe and income to the workers you just fired, and a tax income for the gov't.

Which of those two scenarios best benefits our country and its people? (If you say "the second", we can write you off right now.)

Did you inherit money, Ig? If so, did you pay death taxes on it? I'd be willing to bet that Yes/no are the respective answers.

I believe in much smaller gov't -instead- of taxing the s*it out of the productive members of society, thank you.

-- Remember, in an emergency, dial 1911.

Perfection!

-- Remember, in an emergency, dial 1911.