My Parents Give Me $28k a Year(ejroller.com)
ejroller.com
My Parents Give Me $28k a Year
https://www.ejroller.com/2018/10/25/my-parents-give-me-28000-a-year/
332 comments
And yet if you even dare to open up the argument that government should try to encourage the types of families and behavior that show the best results for this type of childhood, you'll immediately be drowned out in ad hominem attacks. Even Obama took a lot of heat for saying dad's should help raise their kids. Never mind more seriously statically relevant approaches like waiting until after high school and marriage to have kids.
So which specific policies are you advocating?
[deleted]
Most of the arguments you refer to are actually thinly veiled racism ("black dads don't care about their kids") and that is the source of antagonism against them. There is more than a little classism behind Obama's remarks, though: he wasn't exactly raised impoverished or by family who were constantly running afoul of a racist, classist "justice" system.
Nobody is saying black dads don't care about their kids.
The point is that it's a fair assumption that having over 70 percent of black children grow up without fathers robs them of the advantages of the author immediately. Some of the fathers are incarcerated. Most are not, and likely care deeply about their kids, but can't get along with the mother or can't deal with the stress of parenting.... We don't know, and can't know, because political correctness doesnt allow scientists to ask the obvious question:
Why do poor black families have a lower percentage of present fathers than equally poor Latino, white, and Asian families? The data tells us this, and knowing the answer could help empower more black children to achieve their dreams.
That seems like the most uncharitable interpretation possible of the above person's comment.
There's a reason https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog-whistle_politics was coined.
And if you're the only one hearing the dog whistle and everyone else just wants kids to have a better start?
[deleted]
Isn't it also racist to hear someone say "fathers need to be parents too" and jump to the conclusion that the speaker is singling out about black men? There are plenty of fathers of all racists who are skipping out on being parents.
> Isn't it also racist to hear someone say "fathers need to be parents too" and jump to the conclusion that the speaker is singling out about black men?
If that were the issue, it's not racist. The response isn't based on the speaker's race but on the content. But it arguably could be 'jumping to a conclusion'.
But I don't think it's that either. The comment said that such statements are often thinly-veiled racism, which is true. Racism is infrequently expressed literally; there is a lot of 'dog whistle' communication and policies. For example, there's a semi-famous interview with a Republican strategist who said that, during the Reagan years, they realized they could no longer make outright racist statements, so they adopted school busing as an issue and expected that everyone would get the message - they couldn't outright say, 'you don't want your kids going to school with black kids, and we're the party that will stop that kind of thing', but they could talk about busing.
Today, when Republican state governments take away voting locations in minority areas, and create ID and registration requirements that disproportionately affect minorities, it's pretty thinly veiled. In fact, those are some of the same tactics were used before the Voting Rights Act (the tactics returned immediately after Republicans on the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated parts of the Act). Some Republicans openly say that it's to prevent Democrats from voting.
If that were the issue, it's not racist. The response isn't based on the speaker's race but on the content. But it arguably could be 'jumping to a conclusion'.
But I don't think it's that either. The comment said that such statements are often thinly-veiled racism, which is true. Racism is infrequently expressed literally; there is a lot of 'dog whistle' communication and policies. For example, there's a semi-famous interview with a Republican strategist who said that, during the Reagan years, they realized they could no longer make outright racist statements, so they adopted school busing as an issue and expected that everyone would get the message - they couldn't outright say, 'you don't want your kids going to school with black kids, and we're the party that will stop that kind of thing', but they could talk about busing.
Today, when Republican state governments take away voting locations in minority areas, and create ID and registration requirements that disproportionately affect minorities, it's pretty thinly veiled. In fact, those are some of the same tactics were used before the Voting Rights Act (the tactics returned immediately after Republicans on the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated parts of the Act). Some Republicans openly say that it's to prevent Democrats from voting.
"...fathers of all races ..."
[deleted]
Your point becomes even more true when you think about kids who grew up with not enough or even unhealthy foods. Their brains didn't have the resources to develop, so they are hamstrung from the start. Even more true when you see poorer neighborhoods near polluting factories and industrial zones.
Yes, I would really like to do something to put in a floor, so to speak. Something to help mitigate conditions for the people who are the most burdened by current circumstances.
Other people seem to think that's charity or a bleeding heart or something. I see it as just insurance to protect everyone so that stumbling doesn't ruin your life permanently with little to no hope of ever finding your way back to a comfortable life. I also see it as insurance against bloody revolution.
My opinion: Tech giants planning to flee to New Zealand when the Zombie Apocalypse finally hits are fools. A plan to ruin the climate and destroy the social fabric to line their pockets so they can live out the rest of their days in a bunker is lunacy. Why not just, you know, not be so monstrously greedy and, instead, leave the world intact so you can have a better quality of life than that?
Other people seem to think that's charity or a bleeding heart or something. I see it as just insurance to protect everyone so that stumbling doesn't ruin your life permanently with little to no hope of ever finding your way back to a comfortable life. I also see it as insurance against bloody revolution.
My opinion: Tech giants planning to flee to New Zealand when the Zombie Apocalypse finally hits are fools. A plan to ruin the climate and destroy the social fabric to line their pockets so they can live out the rest of their days in a bunker is lunacy. Why not just, you know, not be so monstrously greedy and, instead, leave the world intact so you can have a better quality of life than that?
> Other people seem to think that's charity or a bleeding heart or something. I see it as just [...]
I firmly believe that moral virtue and wisdom are inseparable. That is, to behave more virtuously or with more charity (in the old definition) is to benefit oneself more.
I firmly believe that moral virtue and wisdom are inseparable. That is, to behave more virtuously or with more charity (in the old definition) is to benefit oneself more.
How so, and more importantly, how?
Just one example: An awful lot of people are terrified of being around homeless people. They are just sure the homeless are all drug addicts and thieves.
If the street isn't full of smelly, desperately poor people with no home, you don't have to live in terror of being panhandled by them while imagining it will go much worse places than that.
If I make the world a better place, I get to live in a better place. Simple.
If the street isn't full of smelly, desperately poor people with no home, you don't have to live in terror of being panhandled by them while imagining it will go much worse places than that.
If I make the world a better place, I get to live in a better place. Simple.
Mind. Blown.
Or you could learn a martial art, and not live in terror nor take the entire world's burdens upon your shoulders.
(Or do what I did, and take a job within commute range of a suburb that isn't infested with bums.)
(Or do what I did, and take a job within commute range of a suburb that isn't infested with bums.)
Even if the suburb doesn't have "bums", the area around your job still does, no? So now you also e.g. have to bring lunches rather than taking advantage of the restaurants nearby to work. Kind of constraining.
Also, even if you aren't "living in terror", it still makes you feel instinctually guilty to see people less-advantaged than you, doesn't it? And I would posit that that feeling makes you less productive. (Just like e.g. feeling guilty that you did something bad to your SO makes you less likely to engage in fun activities with them, which decreases the total experienced quality of the relationship for both parties.)
So, even for someone who lived entirely in the safety of suburbia, ending homelessness might have positive knock-on effects for the productivity of non-homeless people due to decreased guilt (and fear), and thereby positive effects on the local economy, and thereby the local tax base, and thereby would improve local civic infrastructure et al. (Oh, and also, people that didn't want to move into the city—like you!—would now move into the city, also increasing the local tax base.)
Or, to put that another way: moving municipal funding from sidewalks to homeless shelters, may increase the total municipal budget, thereby allowing the city to provide both sidewalks and homeless shelters. "The entire world's burdens" never enters into the equation.
Also, even if you aren't "living in terror", it still makes you feel instinctually guilty to see people less-advantaged than you, doesn't it? And I would posit that that feeling makes you less productive. (Just like e.g. feeling guilty that you did something bad to your SO makes you less likely to engage in fun activities with them, which decreases the total experienced quality of the relationship for both parties.)
So, even for someone who lived entirely in the safety of suburbia, ending homelessness might have positive knock-on effects for the productivity of non-homeless people due to decreased guilt (and fear), and thereby positive effects on the local economy, and thereby the local tax base, and thereby would improve local civic infrastructure et al. (Oh, and also, people that didn't want to move into the city—like you!—would now move into the city, also increasing the local tax base.)
Or, to put that another way: moving municipal funding from sidewalks to homeless shelters, may increase the total municipal budget, thereby allowing the city to provide both sidewalks and homeless shelters. "The entire world's burdens" never enters into the equation.
> Even if the suburb doesn't have "bums", the area around your job still does, no?
It doesn't have very many, actually. I'd say more about why not, but that would get into self-doxx territory.
> So now you also e.g. have to bring lunches rather than taking advantage of the restaurants nearby to work. Kind of constraining.
Wat? Independently of the previous item, I pack lunches because a packed lunch costs me a little under a tenth of a restaurant lunch nearby. Restaurants are a twice-a-month type of luxury, and I can't imagine throwing away that kind of dosh on a daily basis.
> Also, even if you aren't "living in terror", it still makes you feel instinctually guilty to see people less-advantaged than you, doesn't it?
In a word: no.
> (Oh, and also, people that didn't want to move into the city—like you!—would now move into the city, also increasing the local tax base.)
I like my place for other reasons. Top among them: it's less than half as expensive as an apartment that's near my workplace, yet it's still well within commuting range and is perfectly nice by my standards.
Aaand I don't really see that as a problem to solve; I like car ownership for other reasons, and given that I own a car, I want to use that situation to decrease other expenses to the greatest extent possible.
It doesn't have very many, actually. I'd say more about why not, but that would get into self-doxx territory.
> So now you also e.g. have to bring lunches rather than taking advantage of the restaurants nearby to work. Kind of constraining.
Wat? Independently of the previous item, I pack lunches because a packed lunch costs me a little under a tenth of a restaurant lunch nearby. Restaurants are a twice-a-month type of luxury, and I can't imagine throwing away that kind of dosh on a daily basis.
> Also, even if you aren't "living in terror", it still makes you feel instinctually guilty to see people less-advantaged than you, doesn't it?
In a word: no.
> (Oh, and also, people that didn't want to move into the city—like you!—would now move into the city, also increasing the local tax base.)
I like my place for other reasons. Top among them: it's less than half as expensive as an apartment that's near my workplace, yet it's still well within commuting range and is perfectly nice by my standards.
Aaand I don't really see that as a problem to solve; I like car ownership for other reasons, and given that I own a car, I want to use that situation to decrease other expenses to the greatest extent possible.
Being charitable doesn't require taking "the entire world's burdens upon your shoulders". And it's been awhile since I got my black belt in TKD, but martial arts aren't much of a solution for malaise that isn't in the form of physical direct combat.
upthread:
> they are just sure the homeless are all drug addicts and thieves
/upthread
> but martial arts aren't much of a solution for malaise that isn't in the form of physical direct combat.
Attempted theft doesn't qualify? Most interesting.
> they are just sure the homeless are all drug addicts and thieves
/upthread
> but martial arts aren't much of a solution for malaise that isn't in the form of physical direct combat.
Attempted theft doesn't qualify? Most interesting.
When u/DoreenMichele said "They are just sure the homeless are all drug addicts and thieves", I think they were arguing the absurdity of such a closed mindset. Not that all the homeless are literally drug addicts and thieves.
> Attempted theft doesn't qualify? Most interesting.
Doesn't qualify as what? My statement about martial arts was that it's not an effective solution for problems that aren't in the "form of physical direct combat". As in, there are other problems and negative consequences that don't manifest themselves in violent personal crimes.
> Attempted theft doesn't qualify? Most interesting.
Doesn't qualify as what? My statement about martial arts was that it's not an effective solution for problems that aren't in the "form of physical direct combat". As in, there are other problems and negative consequences that don't manifest themselves in violent personal crimes.
Problems and consequences? Yes. Problems and consequences that affect non-homeless people who are just passing through and minding their own business? Doubtful.
I would definitely like to live in a country where everyone who has a talent is able to learn and develop their skills for a decade or so and then start contributing something amazing back. But I would say that this is the case for no more than 6% of all people in the US. In all fields (from carpentry to opera).
[deleted]
> Why not just, you know, not be so monstrously greedy and, instead, leave the world intact so you can have a better quality of life than that?
Because the entire system is built on greed. In capitalism, if you're not greedy, someone else will be, and you lose out.
Because the entire system is built on greed. In capitalism, if you're not greedy, someone else will be, and you lose out.
> I also see it as insurance against bloody revolution.
Why do you believe that our government does not - like any government purported to be by&for its people - slowly and inexorably march towards needing a horrifyingly bloody revolution in order to escape from degrading into oligarchy?
This isn't a new idea, either; it's ever so slightly older than the Constitution itself:
"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. … What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." -- Thomas Jefferson
Why do you believe that our government does not - like any government purported to be by&for its people - slowly and inexorably march towards needing a horrifyingly bloody revolution in order to escape from degrading into oligarchy?
This isn't a new idea, either; it's ever so slightly older than the Constitution itself:
"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. … What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." -- Thomas Jefferson
I recommend you a study on "social capital" by Pierre Bourdieu and Jean-Claude Passeron titled The inheritors. I disagree with all of the conclusions they draw and the recommendations they make but the rest of their analytical work is brillant and insightful.
Sadly there doesn't seem to be an easily accessible english translation. If you read French you should go for it, as it is arguably one of its most important and underrated work.
I found this companion/introduction to Bourdieu's work but I cannot vouch for it: https://www.amazon.com/Culture-Power-Sociology-Pierre-Bourdi...
Sadly there doesn't seem to be an easily accessible english translation. If you read French you should go for it, as it is arguably one of its most important and underrated work.
I found this companion/introduction to Bourdieu's work but I cannot vouch for it: https://www.amazon.com/Culture-Power-Sociology-Pierre-Bourdi...
Anyway to bridge the gap as an adult or is it too late for those who didn't have a privileged life?
Eat right. Exercise. Live like a monk. Never stop learning. Put your physical health first. Untangle yourself from relationship drama.
Some people do see success later in life after sorting their issues in early life.
My life is a very mixed bag, with both big assets and big issues. I'm hoping to have a few nice years yet before I check out. I've spent a lot of years sorting my crap.
Some people do see success later in life after sorting their issues in early life.
My life is a very mixed bag, with both big assets and big issues. I'm hoping to have a few nice years yet before I check out. I've spent a lot of years sorting my crap.
I'd add: "Avoid whenever possible life and work situations that cause undue stress: stress kills."
How wise of you to recognize your privilege. Very many don't. How old were you when you came to realize the advantages you had? Wondering if it was in your 20s, 30s, what.
I believe I was 47 and had already been on the street about a year before I got solid perspective. My mother worked as a maid most of my life. For the longest time, I absolutely did not see myself as coming from some kind of privileged background.
The value of this gift is much greater than then nominal sum.
My parents gave me $3000 for the down-payment on my first house, which cost $100k. Otherwise I wouldn't have been able to afford to buy a house. But I bought instead of renting and ended up selling it for $200k years later. That was a big financial win early on and meant I was never in debt again.
My financial situation at the time was barely-making-ends-meet, so I had to sell the house to recover the equity to buy a car and move across the country when I was transferred.
Had my parents given me $30k as a one-time gift, I wouldn't have had to sell that house at all and would have rented it out in perpetuity. That would have been about $1000k a month of income for me, in addition to keeping the equity in the house.
I've resisted spending money on a lot of things like, say, home renovations, new cars, etc. until I felt like I was paying for it solely from interest earned on investments or the purchase was an absolute necessity. The only reason I was able to start investing at a young age, on a very small income, was the sale of that house. Those savings have compounded, but more importantly I've always had enough cash to cover incidental expenses and that's enabled me to continue investing.
Even small gifts can lift you out of a cycle of poverty. $3000 at the right time made a dramatic difference in my financial situation and will for the rest of my life. But $30k at the right time would ultimately have been worth about an extra $500k to me twenty years later.
$30k a year like in the article would have just ensured I was as rich as my parents. That would have all gone to investments.
My parents gave me $3000 for the down-payment on my first house, which cost $100k. Otherwise I wouldn't have been able to afford to buy a house. But I bought instead of renting and ended up selling it for $200k years later. That was a big financial win early on and meant I was never in debt again.
My financial situation at the time was barely-making-ends-meet, so I had to sell the house to recover the equity to buy a car and move across the country when I was transferred.
Had my parents given me $30k as a one-time gift, I wouldn't have had to sell that house at all and would have rented it out in perpetuity. That would have been about $1000k a month of income for me, in addition to keeping the equity in the house.
I've resisted spending money on a lot of things like, say, home renovations, new cars, etc. until I felt like I was paying for it solely from interest earned on investments or the purchase was an absolute necessity. The only reason I was able to start investing at a young age, on a very small income, was the sale of that house. Those savings have compounded, but more importantly I've always had enough cash to cover incidental expenses and that's enabled me to continue investing.
Even small gifts can lift you out of a cycle of poverty. $3000 at the right time made a dramatic difference in my financial situation and will for the rest of my life. But $30k at the right time would ultimately have been worth about an extra $500k to me twenty years later.
$30k a year like in the article would have just ensured I was as rich as my parents. That would have all gone to investments.
I sometimes think about debt the same way. In college I scraped by on ramen noodles and avoided doing anything that cost money. For example I wanted to go camping but didn't have say, $100 for a tent. If I had just put the $100 on my credit card, I'd probably have happy memories with friends, but now I can't get that experience back for any price.
When I was in college I was broke one summer and not keen on working as I was heavily invested in producing music (which wasn't paying at the time). I took a £500 credit card and then immediately blew it on a weekend at the Edinburgh fringe festival. I spent 3 weeks eating plain white rice afterwards until I started working because I had to as that was all I had left at home. Though I'm now interested in FIRE and have a family and this behaviour is the opposite of what is required I'm still happy I did it. One of the best memories I have. I should note that I definitely did this from a position of privilege and if shit really hit the fan I could have always swallowed my pride and asked for a family bail out. Not sure if I would feel the same way had this not been the case.
> I should note that I definitely did this from a position of privilege and if shit really hit the fan I could have always swallowed my pride and asked for a family bail out.
I think this is really insightful. The difference between being truly poor and just being a broke college student is that while a broke student may not have any money on their pocket, they can always call it quits if things just too hard.* Makes me think more carefully when people claim "hey I know what it's like to be poor too - I had no money at college!"
*assuming they're not also truly poor.
I think this is really insightful. The difference between being truly poor and just being a broke college student is that while a broke student may not have any money on their pocket, they can always call it quits if things just too hard.* Makes me think more carefully when people claim "hey I know what it's like to be poor too - I had no money at college!"
*assuming they're not also truly poor.
My parents and my wife's parents together loaned me money for 6 months to buy a house and it saved me gobs of money.
This was just after the mortgage crash, so the fact that I could make a cash offer probably saved me $50-$100k on the price of the house alone.
In both cases, they just exercised an existing line of credit, so just them extending to us the credit they already received was sufficient to save us an absurd amount of money.
This was just after the mortgage crash, so the fact that I could make a cash offer probably saved me $50-$100k on the price of the house alone.
In both cases, they just exercised an existing line of credit, so just them extending to us the credit they already received was sufficient to save us an absurd amount of money.
[deleted]
A refrain that is very true in NYC.
It is a bit off-putting (and just wrong) to read the author talk about white male privilege being a comparable head start to her half a million dollars of family money she’s received. (And 28,000/yr still coming!) For an essay centered on owning up to personal privilege it still has some serious short comings in recognizing how extreme her wealth privilege is versus almost all intrinsic characteristic in society privileges.
It is a bit off-putting (and just wrong) to read the author talk about white male privilege being a comparable head start to her half a million dollars of family money she’s received. (And 28,000/yr still coming!) For an essay centered on owning up to personal privilege it still has some serious short comings in recognizing how extreme her wealth privilege is versus almost all intrinsic characteristic in society privileges.
Consider that even well-known black movie stars occasionally get the "shopping while black" treatment. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/19/forest-whitaker-fa... Having even absurd amounts of money doesn't make bias just go away.
Having absurd amounts of money certainly doesn't make bias go away, but it definitely makes such bias more bearable. I've been subject to numerous indignities due to "shopping while black", I've also gone hungry and had to resort to sleeping under overpasses, the two are incomparable.
$28k a year in free money was an almost unimaginable sum to myself and many of my friends, most black but some white, when growing up. It's my general experience that people at this level of privilege don't have the ability to truly understand how privilege, or the lack thereof, impacts the entirety of your existence, and should refrain from castigating others for their perceived privileges, it's splitting hairs at this point.
$28k a year in free money was an almost unimaginable sum to myself and many of my friends, most black but some white, when growing up. It's my general experience that people at this level of privilege don't have the ability to truly understand how privilege, or the lack thereof, impacts the entirety of your existence, and should refrain from castigating others for their perceived privileges, it's splitting hairs at this point.
If/when you have kids, assuming the economy looks roughly the same when they graduate college, would you consider providing them a similar $28k/year stipend if they decided to pursue their goal in the arts/a non-lucrative career? Maybe non-monetary support such as having a place to live with you at home? Or would you want them to learn lessons the hard way?
This is getting very hypothetical here, but I'll be glad to indulge your question. I'm unsure at this stage in my life whether I'll ever have the opportunity to have children of my own, but I would certainly like to. As I've spent some time in the foster care system, and seeing as it ended rather disastrously with me spending a good chunk of my HS years homeless, I'd very much like to get involved in being a foster parent. I'd certainly like to give my child, whether biological or adopted, many of the things that I didn't have growing up. First and foremost would be love, and safety, and the educational opportunities I didn't have. Travel would be the first of things I may categorize as "luxuries" that I'd like to gift.
As to a specific number, my gut feeling tells me $28K seems rather excessive. That's more money annually than I and most of my friends made in total yearly wages for a good chunk of our adult lives, and we all worked rather dutifully. I'm not entirely convinced that the creation of art requires such sums. And $28k could certainly help a lot of other children in need.
In any case, I'd like to think one of the most satisfying aspects of parenting is watching a child transform into an adult, I'm unsure whether a perpetual yearly stipend equal to the wages of large segments of this country is the best method to achieve that goal. But assuming my child was the recipient of such privilege, I'd hope I would have taught them the humility to understand just how privileged they were, and in general refrain from criticism based on generalities.
As to a specific number, my gut feeling tells me $28K seems rather excessive. That's more money annually than I and most of my friends made in total yearly wages for a good chunk of our adult lives, and we all worked rather dutifully. I'm not entirely convinced that the creation of art requires such sums. And $28k could certainly help a lot of other children in need.
In any case, I'd like to think one of the most satisfying aspects of parenting is watching a child transform into an adult, I'm unsure whether a perpetual yearly stipend equal to the wages of large segments of this country is the best method to achieve that goal. But assuming my child was the recipient of such privilege, I'd hope I would have taught them the humility to understand just how privileged they were, and in general refrain from criticism based on generalities.
> I'd very much like to get involved in being a foster parent.
(Sorry to hijack) As a former foster parent, and now an adoptive parent, and a hopeful future foster parent: I strongly encourage anyone who is able to get involved to do so. There are so many kids who need the help only foster parents can give. There will never be a "perfect" time, trust me. But it makes me so sad to hear stories like yours about kids who are homeless :(
(Sorry to hijack) As a former foster parent, and now an adoptive parent, and a hopeful future foster parent: I strongly encourage anyone who is able to get involved to do so. There are so many kids who need the help only foster parents can give. There will never be a "perfect" time, trust me. But it makes me so sad to hear stories like yours about kids who are homeless :(
Thanks for responding.
I come from a more privileged background with a lot of family support, so I can see the good (stability and guidance allows you to learn, socialize, grow, stay out of the death spiral of the penal/judicial system) and bad (overdependence on parents, growing up in a bubble, not learning lessons in a visceral/hard way that will stick with you, mistaking luck and hard work) from where I've come from.
I appreciate you sharing your personal perspective, and I agree. I wouldn't want to provide any monetary support for my children post university (unless it is more of a business transaction with stipulations on what it can be spent on/payback period), but would want to provide stability and travel/educational experiences growing up, and be there when shit happens as it usually does
Per your privilege comment, travel has been the most helpful for me to get outside of my bubble, so I think you hit the nail on the head. It's like the fish swimming in water parable:
There are these two young fish swimming along, and they happen to meet an older fish swimming the other way, who nods at them and says, "Morning, boys, how's the water?" And the two young fish swim on for a bit, and then eventually one of them looks over at the other and goes, "What the hell is water?"
http://bulletin-archive.kenyon.edu/x4280.html
I come from a more privileged background with a lot of family support, so I can see the good (stability and guidance allows you to learn, socialize, grow, stay out of the death spiral of the penal/judicial system) and bad (overdependence on parents, growing up in a bubble, not learning lessons in a visceral/hard way that will stick with you, mistaking luck and hard work) from where I've come from.
I appreciate you sharing your personal perspective, and I agree. I wouldn't want to provide any monetary support for my children post university (unless it is more of a business transaction with stipulations on what it can be spent on/payback period), but would want to provide stability and travel/educational experiences growing up, and be there when shit happens as it usually does
Per your privilege comment, travel has been the most helpful for me to get outside of my bubble, so I think you hit the nail on the head. It's like the fish swimming in water parable:
There are these two young fish swimming along, and they happen to meet an older fish swimming the other way, who nods at them and says, "Morning, boys, how's the water?" And the two young fish swim on for a bit, and then eventually one of them looks over at the other and goes, "What the hell is water?"
http://bulletin-archive.kenyon.edu/x4280.html
I apologize for not acknowledging your post earlier, I know it's not exactly within HN etiquette, but I just wanted to say thanks for such a thoughtful response.
I'm not the person to which you've replied, but I've had a similarly privileged young adulthood. I wasn't given $28k/year, but my parents have always been there for me, and have had the financial resources to help me significantly as an adult.
I have two daughters, who are five and ten years old. I do not intend to pay for their higher education, and I don't intend to give them anything resembling a "stipend" when they go off on their own. Instead, I expect them to build financial independence from my wife and I as quickly as they can, and am very active in making sure they have the skills and character to do so.
Now, that said, we are on track to being able to offer the kind of support in the article. If one (or both) of my children come to me with a plan to pursue college, reasonable projections of how much it will cost, and a timeline that shows a good ROI on that investment, then we'll reconsider. It will be a serious financial decision, though, and one that I expect them to put a lot of thought and planning into. It's entirely possible that my wife and I will simply pay for our children's tuition, living expenses, down payment on a home, or even just buy them a home outright - but any and all financial assistance we provide them will be predicated on one of two things: actual need, or net benefit.
I want my children to understand the weight of the financial decisions they make in early adulthood. I want them to understand and to feel the consequences of those decisions - but they are my children, and I won't let them place themselves in serious danger because of their early mistakes.
I've gone through this myself. I hope my children have an easier time than I did transitioning from childhood to adulthood, but if not, I plan to handle it in a way similar to that of my own parents. In 2004, I had lost a full academic scholarship to a state school and was suffering from clinical depression. I lived in a one-bedroom apartment with my girlfriend (now wife), and my bank account was almost always negative. I worked overnights stocking shelves at a grocery store and my girlfriend was a retail clerk. My parents were there for me - they made sure I had reliable (not "nice", but reliable) transportation, made sure I had a basic cellphone that wasn't always getting disconnected, and were always willing to help make ends meet if there wasn't enough money for food at the end of the month.
From 2002, when I started college, to about 2005, I was barely able to function as an adult. In August of 2005 I married, and started putting my life together. I moved back to my home town in 2006 with a plan to get a career-oriented job at the only decent employer in the area, based mostly on my reputation as a nerd and the fact that I knew many people who worked there, since it was a small town. In 2007 I landed an hourly job there, and worked my way up. We had a daughter in 2008, moved to Virginia for a better job in 2013, had another daughter there, and moved back once more in 2018 to work remotely.
Even today, if I were to experience real financial stress, my parents are there for me. I haven't had to rely on them for many years now, but they're there. I'm 34, and only now am I to the point where I feel like I have an adequate safety net built for myself to withstand a significant event - I see no way I could have built that without my parents' being there for me.
It isn't only about the money. No matter what happens to me or my finances, we will not be homeless as long as my extended family is alive. The opposite is also true; my wife is an only child and her parents are beginning to get to the point in their lives where they're going to need more assistance. I'm taking on that responsibility as I can, and within the next ten years I fully expect that I will be responsible for making sure they're comfortable in their retirement.
To me, this is how families are supposed to work. It's how they've worked for generations. Parents sacrifice to enrich their children's lives, and children do what they can to honor that sacrifice. Extended family is always there to help with immediate issues, whether it raising a barn, helping someone move, or driving someone to a doctor's appointment three hours away. It works, I embrace it, and have made it a central tenet of my life.
I have two daughters, who are five and ten years old. I do not intend to pay for their higher education, and I don't intend to give them anything resembling a "stipend" when they go off on their own. Instead, I expect them to build financial independence from my wife and I as quickly as they can, and am very active in making sure they have the skills and character to do so.
Now, that said, we are on track to being able to offer the kind of support in the article. If one (or both) of my children come to me with a plan to pursue college, reasonable projections of how much it will cost, and a timeline that shows a good ROI on that investment, then we'll reconsider. It will be a serious financial decision, though, and one that I expect them to put a lot of thought and planning into. It's entirely possible that my wife and I will simply pay for our children's tuition, living expenses, down payment on a home, or even just buy them a home outright - but any and all financial assistance we provide them will be predicated on one of two things: actual need, or net benefit.
I want my children to understand the weight of the financial decisions they make in early adulthood. I want them to understand and to feel the consequences of those decisions - but they are my children, and I won't let them place themselves in serious danger because of their early mistakes.
I've gone through this myself. I hope my children have an easier time than I did transitioning from childhood to adulthood, but if not, I plan to handle it in a way similar to that of my own parents. In 2004, I had lost a full academic scholarship to a state school and was suffering from clinical depression. I lived in a one-bedroom apartment with my girlfriend (now wife), and my bank account was almost always negative. I worked overnights stocking shelves at a grocery store and my girlfriend was a retail clerk. My parents were there for me - they made sure I had reliable (not "nice", but reliable) transportation, made sure I had a basic cellphone that wasn't always getting disconnected, and were always willing to help make ends meet if there wasn't enough money for food at the end of the month.
From 2002, when I started college, to about 2005, I was barely able to function as an adult. In August of 2005 I married, and started putting my life together. I moved back to my home town in 2006 with a plan to get a career-oriented job at the only decent employer in the area, based mostly on my reputation as a nerd and the fact that I knew many people who worked there, since it was a small town. In 2007 I landed an hourly job there, and worked my way up. We had a daughter in 2008, moved to Virginia for a better job in 2013, had another daughter there, and moved back once more in 2018 to work remotely.
Even today, if I were to experience real financial stress, my parents are there for me. I haven't had to rely on them for many years now, but they're there. I'm 34, and only now am I to the point where I feel like I have an adequate safety net built for myself to withstand a significant event - I see no way I could have built that without my parents' being there for me.
It isn't only about the money. No matter what happens to me or my finances, we will not be homeless as long as my extended family is alive. The opposite is also true; my wife is an only child and her parents are beginning to get to the point in their lives where they're going to need more assistance. I'm taking on that responsibility as I can, and within the next ten years I fully expect that I will be responsible for making sure they're comfortable in their retirement.
To me, this is how families are supposed to work. It's how they've worked for generations. Parents sacrifice to enrich their children's lives, and children do what they can to honor that sacrifice. Extended family is always there to help with immediate issues, whether it raising a barn, helping someone move, or driving someone to a doctor's appointment three hours away. It works, I embrace it, and have made it a central tenet of my life.
Thanks for sharing your story. I agree with all of your sentiments.
What was the turning point for you in deciding to put your life together (if there was one single moment or realization)? Was it getting married and having the responsibility for taking care of your new, young family? It must have been hard to dig out of depression in what probably seemed like a hopeless situation at the time.
What was the turning point for you in deciding to put your life together (if there was one single moment or realization)? Was it getting married and having the responsibility for taking care of your new, young family? It must have been hard to dig out of depression in what probably seemed like a hopeless situation at the time.
Getting married helped cement things for me, but honestly, complete failure was never an option. It took me time to turn things around, and I failed over and over until I finally made it happen.
or men of any race who get the "walking behind a nervous women while male" treatment when walking around their city at night
Do you think that's unjustified from them?
I, as a fairly non-descript white guy, am always worried when out walking near a single female that she might be afraid of me and what I might do and take steps to help alleviate that (walk slower, etc.).
I mean, it seems like the most reasonable course of action. Sure, I'm never going to confront/assault/rape anyone, but the 5'2", 110 lbs woman walking in front of me on the street? She has no clue. How hard is it for me to slow down half a step and give her some relief?
I, as a fairly non-descript white guy, am always worried when out walking near a single female that she might be afraid of me and what I might do and take steps to help alleviate that (walk slower, etc.).
I mean, it seems like the most reasonable course of action. Sure, I'm never going to confront/assault/rape anyone, but the 5'2", 110 lbs woman walking in front of me on the street? She has no clue. How hard is it for me to slow down half a step and give her some relief?
> How hard is it for me to slow down half a step and give her some relief?
Why would dropping back give relief? Seems to me, moving to the side as far as the sidewalk, etc., permits then accelerating to pass so you aren't behind is the better course of action.
Why would dropping back give relief? Seems to me, moving to the side as far as the sidewalk, etc., permits then accelerating to pass so you aren't behind is the better course of action.
Yeah. It's all situation dependent. If you slow, then she'll keep increasing the distance between you. I try to pass if reasonable. Especially if we hit a light or something, even crossing on red if no cars. Really anything that feels reasonable to show I'm not interested in them at all. Hard to give all angles in a comment.
I guess my point is that I feel like you are doing something wrong if you /aren't/ considering how those around you are interpreting your actions. It's like the people at the grocery store who blindly stop their carts in the middle of the aisle and walk away to browse...seriously? You didn't consider how your actions impacted anyone else at all?
I guess my point is that I feel like you are doing something wrong if you /aren't/ considering how those around you are interpreting your actions. It's like the people at the grocery store who blindly stop their carts in the middle of the aisle and walk away to browse...seriously? You didn't consider how your actions impacted anyone else at all?
That actually makes the whole situation far creepier. You go from an unwanted person along her path to literally stalking her until your paths part.
stalk gerund or present participle: stalking: pursue or approach stealthily.
synonyms:creep up on, trail, follow, shadow, track down, go after, be after, course, hunt;More
stalk gerund or present participle: stalking: pursue or approach stealthily.
synonyms:creep up on, trail, follow, shadow, track down, go after, be after, course, hunt;More
And yet I bet that 95%+ of American white males would easily, easily, easily make the trade between 'shopping while black' and $28,000/year. I actually wonder if you took the poorest 50% of white males and asked them what poor treatment they would suffer for $28,000/year tax-free - how much would they willing endure? I dare to say quite a lot.
>Having even absurd amounts of money doesn't make bias just go away.
And having white skin and a penis doesn't make inequality go away either.
>Having even absurd amounts of money doesn't make bias just go away.
And having white skin and a penis doesn't make inequality go away either.
You do not seem to be aware of just how bad poverty and inequality has gotten for everyone.
https://www.prb.org/us-inequality-poverty/
Yes, black Americans do have worse outcomes than white Americans.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/psmag.com/.amp/economics/four-f...
However, we should not be splitting hairs over who has it worse or bickering about how to make poor dumb white families pay for the injustices of systemic racism that they had no hand in creating or maintaining.
There are a lot of poor people in America and they all deserve our help. If we continue to pick and choose who we help based on what minority sub-group makes the most noise we will only accomplish division. If the top 1% can increase their wealth by 20%in a year then we can also improve schools, health care, and access to affordable financing for all poor people. Instead we get divisive platitudes that alienate poor whites and never actually help poor blacks.
https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2016/02/concen...
We should start by funding public schools equally by head count instead of from property taxes.
https://www.thenation.com/article/how-unequal-school-funding...
Then we should probably end the inane war on drugs, fix healthcare, free the slaves filling prisons that do not pose a danger to society, overturn CU, and build some affordable damn houses.
https://www.prb.org/us-inequality-poverty/
Yes, black Americans do have worse outcomes than white Americans.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/psmag.com/.amp/economics/four-f...
However, we should not be splitting hairs over who has it worse or bickering about how to make poor dumb white families pay for the injustices of systemic racism that they had no hand in creating or maintaining.
There are a lot of poor people in America and they all deserve our help. If we continue to pick and choose who we help based on what minority sub-group makes the most noise we will only accomplish division. If the top 1% can increase their wealth by 20%in a year then we can also improve schools, health care, and access to affordable financing for all poor people. Instead we get divisive platitudes that alienate poor whites and never actually help poor blacks.
https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2016/02/concen...
We should start by funding public schools equally by head count instead of from property taxes.
https://www.thenation.com/article/how-unequal-school-funding...
Then we should probably end the inane war on drugs, fix healthcare, free the slaves filling prisons that do not pose a danger to society, overturn CU, and build some affordable damn houses.
Intersectionality (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality) is an interesting subject. Privilege has many axes and can vary with circumstances; it's dangerous to reduce to a one-dimensional less-than/greater-than scale. A black woman from a wealthy family may have more privilege and more opportunities than a white man from a dirt-poor family, and that must be taken into consideration if we want to make a better world. But at the same time, it remains true that the average black woman has less privilege (in most circumstances) than the average white man.
It almost like one should judge people individually and not by the groups they are a part of.
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
It is politically useful to pick at partially healed wounds to make them bleed again, rather than allow them to heal completely. I hope that MLK would have fought against the current trend of re-opening those wounds and undoing any healing that had already begun.
> I hope that MLK would have ...
I once said similar things. Then I learned that MLK was told similar things then - he was constantly told that he was creating trouble by inflaming things. I strongly encourage you to read his "Letter From a Birmingham Jail" to see not only that the same things have always been said, but his response - it transformed my understanding of these issues.
> partially healed wounds ...
> re-opening those wounds and undoing any healing that had already begun.
I think we should question the assumptions that the wounds were as healed as perhaps is widely thought by people who aren't in minorities. What makes you say they are healed to the extent you think? When I ask people who have those experiences personally and directly, they almost always have a starkly different view of the amount of 'healing'.
Part of MLK's response is that, unless compelled to address it, people don't take them seriously and they linger. Racism has lingered in the U.S. for centuries. IME, people who aren't directly affected by problems tend to project their experiences onto them - they unconsciously infer that 'I don't see bad things' means 'it's not bad'.
Finally, a bit of a tangent: MLK is often adopted by white Americans because his message, misunderstood, makes them feel comfortable. MLK was very much about making people uncomfortable, and he believed (again, see the Letter) that that was the only way to foster change. (And IIRC, even after the Voting Rights Act, surveys showed that MLK had more people in the U.S. who thought negatively about him than positively.)
I once said similar things. Then I learned that MLK was told similar things then - he was constantly told that he was creating trouble by inflaming things. I strongly encourage you to read his "Letter From a Birmingham Jail" to see not only that the same things have always been said, but his response - it transformed my understanding of these issues.
> partially healed wounds ...
> re-opening those wounds and undoing any healing that had already begun.
I think we should question the assumptions that the wounds were as healed as perhaps is widely thought by people who aren't in minorities. What makes you say they are healed to the extent you think? When I ask people who have those experiences personally and directly, they almost always have a starkly different view of the amount of 'healing'.
Part of MLK's response is that, unless compelled to address it, people don't take them seriously and they linger. Racism has lingered in the U.S. for centuries. IME, people who aren't directly affected by problems tend to project their experiences onto them - they unconsciously infer that 'I don't see bad things' means 'it's not bad'.
Finally, a bit of a tangent: MLK is often adopted by white Americans because his message, misunderstood, makes them feel comfortable. MLK was very much about making people uncomfortable, and he believed (again, see the Letter) that that was the only way to foster change. (And IIRC, even after the Voting Rights Act, surveys showed that MLK had more people in the U.S. who thought negatively about him than positively.)
It's true that other people have problems, but that doesn't reduce the amount of discrimination against African-Americans and other minorities, or help the problem. An assumption behind the parent's "bet" (no evidence is given) is that discrimination against African-Americans isn't especially problematic. I think that needs to be supported against the mountains of evidence that say otherwise; IMHO, it is like claims of climate change denial - it's easy to make the claims, but the evidence is overwhelmingly otherwise.
A sad fact of HN is that there are no voices of African-Americans, or at least very few and they don't share their experiences (not that I blame them; it's a hostile place). Other people with no experience like to share their opinions, but that is as valuable as me talking about what it's like to work at Microsoft - I've never worked there so my opinion isn't worth a lot. The lack of people experienced in this subject is both an outcome of generations of discrimination - African-American families often lack the wealth, income, and educational history associated with higher education and SV jobs - and a cause of it: We don't understand the problems. We're just BSing in the dark.
A sad fact of HN is that there are no voices of African-Americans, or at least very few and they don't share their experiences (not that I blame them; it's a hostile place). Other people with no experience like to share their opinions, but that is as valuable as me talking about what it's like to work at Microsoft - I've never worked there so my opinion isn't worth a lot. The lack of people experienced in this subject is both an outcome of generations of discrimination - African-American families often lack the wealth, income, and educational history associated with higher education and SV jobs - and a cause of it: We don't understand the problems. We're just BSing in the dark.
You think that HN is a hostile place?
I think it is to African-Americans, women, and other minorities. For example, broad stereotypes and criticisms are made, and frequently comments that say, for example, that racism is a problem, is voted down (my GP comment was voted down to -2, for example) and commonly harshly criticized. When those issues come up, most comments criticize any differing perspective before they are expressed. On the surface, there is very little interest in listening to other points of view - though I suspect that is the intent of the inflammatory commenters, to shut down discussion.
I think if you did a survey on HN users you would see that most of them think that racism is in fact a problem - that it is not good.
Also, I think its important to consider your comments holistically when seeing how they are received by the community. Of course you believe you comment communicates one thing, but in addition to that you have tone, other claims, and defenses. Any of which can result in a downvote.
Also, I think its important to consider your comments holistically when seeing how they are received by the community. Of course you believe you comment communicates one thing, but in addition to that you have tone, other claims, and defenses. Any of which can result in a downvote.
I think these are great points, and the second paragraph, in some form, should be in the Guidelines. It's refreshing and encouraging to read them.
To be clear, I wasn't asking why that particular comment was downvoted; I'm talking about a much broader pattern.
To be clear, I wasn't asking why that particular comment was downvoted; I'm talking about a much broader pattern.
(bless her heart)
rjkennedy98(1)
Relevant John Adams quote:
I could fill volumes with descriptions of temples and palaces, paintings, sculptures, tapestry, porcelain, etc., etc., etc.—if I could have time. But I could not do this without neglecting my duty. The science of government it is my duty to study, more than all other sciences: the art of legislation and administration and negotiation, ought to take place, indeed to exclude in a manner all other arts. I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history, naval architecture, navigation, commerce, and agriculture, in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelain.
I could fill volumes with descriptions of temples and palaces, paintings, sculptures, tapestry, porcelain, etc., etc., etc.—if I could have time. But I could not do this without neglecting my duty. The science of government it is my duty to study, more than all other sciences: the art of legislation and administration and negotiation, ought to take place, indeed to exclude in a manner all other arts. I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history, naval architecture, navigation, commerce, and agriculture, in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelain.
It's a beautiful quote and sentiment. But seriously, how unrealistic is that? The bad guys are still going to be here three generations from now and the world is still going to need people with hard skills.
You need to be able to protect your village before you can grow it.
You need to be able to feed your village, before you can have artisans.
You need to establish the basic needs before you can have a renaissance, and having everyone be a soldier when the borders haven't changed in 150 years doesn't make economic sense. "Kill them with kindness" and 2 trillion in exported goods instead.
You need to be able to feed your village, before you can have artisans.
You need to establish the basic needs before you can have a renaissance, and having everyone be a soldier when the borders haven't changed in 150 years doesn't make economic sense. "Kill them with kindness" and 2 trillion in exported goods instead.
Progress is being made but it's never perfectly linear without regressions.
“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.”
Why should we aim to have future generations of artists and leisure enthusiasts, only so the cycle can begin anew?
Why should we aim to have future generations of artists and leisure enthusiasts, only so the cycle can begin anew?
I think it is a pretension to assume it is the artists and leisure enthusiasts who are the weak. Perhaps it is all the men of strong skills and closed minds who cannot achieve, or even envision good times - they bring the hard times because that is all they think is possible in the world, or perhaps all that it deserves.
Yes, obviously, we should strive to not improve anything. Having the occasional bright spot punctuating the gloom of history is such a waste of time.
/s
/s
How about maintaining some sense of balance, responsibility, and austerity in our societies, instead of forever marching towards a fictional leisure-filled utopia?
in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelain.
As far as I can tell, you are the only one inferring that studying architecture and similar civilized topics equates to leisure and irresponsibility. That doesn't make sense to my mind. Here's my context for such remarks:
My dad grew up in the Great Depression. He fought in two wars. He was awarded a purple heart. My mother grew up in Germany during WW2 and its aftermath.
They raised me well with values like eating well matters and petty conflicts aren't worth being grudging over. I spent nearly 6 years camping -- aka homeless -- to get myself healthier while the world heaped verbal abuse upon me for it and called me a liar and crazy.
My dream job is in the urban planning and economic development sphere. Among other things, I would love to help artists and writers and others figure out how to monetize their work and live well, even if they don't make scads of money. I would like to help homeless people access an earned income.
Before my life was derailed, I was a military wife and homeschooling parent. I would like to return to that kind of role, but on a larger scale. I would like to help raise up the region wherein I live.
Perhaps I shall figure out how to pull that off. I don't imagine it will involve a lot of leisure, though it will be the antithesis of war, even the antidote to it. Though I assume you won't see what I see there. Peace is not merely the absence of conflict. Trying to put it into words tends to be elusive.
I continue to be largely dismissed, not given support, have doors slammed in my face, etc. I also run multiple websites with useful info for people with big problems. Once in a while, someone kicks a few bucks my way and I get a smidgen of Patreon support.
So perhaps it can be grown. Perhaps this small candle I've lit in the dark void of my life can become a bonfire for others less fortunate than I am whose parents didn't similarly arm them for the battle ahead in life.
As far as I can tell, you are the only one inferring that studying architecture and similar civilized topics equates to leisure and irresponsibility. That doesn't make sense to my mind. Here's my context for such remarks:
My dad grew up in the Great Depression. He fought in two wars. He was awarded a purple heart. My mother grew up in Germany during WW2 and its aftermath.
They raised me well with values like eating well matters and petty conflicts aren't worth being grudging over. I spent nearly 6 years camping -- aka homeless -- to get myself healthier while the world heaped verbal abuse upon me for it and called me a liar and crazy.
My dream job is in the urban planning and economic development sphere. Among other things, I would love to help artists and writers and others figure out how to monetize their work and live well, even if they don't make scads of money. I would like to help homeless people access an earned income.
Before my life was derailed, I was a military wife and homeschooling parent. I would like to return to that kind of role, but on a larger scale. I would like to help raise up the region wherein I live.
Perhaps I shall figure out how to pull that off. I don't imagine it will involve a lot of leisure, though it will be the antithesis of war, even the antidote to it. Though I assume you won't see what I see there. Peace is not merely the absence of conflict. Trying to put it into words tends to be elusive.
I continue to be largely dismissed, not given support, have doors slammed in my face, etc. I also run multiple websites with useful info for people with big problems. Once in a while, someone kicks a few bucks my way and I get a smidgen of Patreon support.
So perhaps it can be grown. Perhaps this small candle I've lit in the dark void of my life can become a bonfire for others less fortunate than I am whose parents didn't similarly arm them for the battle ahead in life.
What leisure-filled society are you referring to in the post you originally responded to, and where are you getting the notion that somebody here thinks such a thing would be a utopia? All I saw in that quote was the ideal of achieving a world where we have the right to work hard at whatever passions we have, which sounds like a hacker's utopia to me.
I think the charitable interpretation would be [0]: Conflation of economic value with non-leisure classification. That is, if it had economic value, then they should be able to make a living doing it. And doing an activity for a living could certainly be seen as an operating definition for "non-leisure activity".
So, by such definition, if everyone is free to run around and do whatever activity they want, then either every activity is economically valued and thereby non-leisure... Or everyone can somehow take part in leisurely activities without regard to making a living. Which could certainly be seen as an operation definition for "leisure-filled utopia".
[0] Not GP. This is me possibly putting words into GP's mouth, while also asserting that these are not my words.
So, by such definition, if everyone is free to run around and do whatever activity they want, then either every activity is economically valued and thereby non-leisure... Or everyone can somehow take part in leisurely activities without regard to making a living. Which could certainly be seen as an operation definition for "leisure-filled utopia".
[0] Not GP. This is me possibly putting words into GP's mouth, while also asserting that these are not my words.
I can't think of an example of this cycle in human history. It sounds great, though.
What do the children of poets and musicians study?
Their children are tired of living in poverty and go back to step 1.
The Adam's quote only says that they are given the right to study, this isn't the pessimistic statement of Rashid bin Saeed Al Maktoum. Adams' great-grandchildren can focus on: politics, war, mathematics, philosophy, geography, natural history, naval architecture, navigation, commerce, agriculture, painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, porcelain... and probably more.
I can't wait to find out!
Maybe this isn't the right place to ask, but could someone explain the rationale for taxing gifts within a family? Ignoring the possibility of using it to circumvent an income tax, etc., my initial thought is that if my dad wants to give me $30,001 this year, or even $300,000 this year, that he's already paid taxes on it and it's not the government's business. I feel the same way about inheritance taxes, although those are high enough I'm not too concerned about it.
I hope this doesn't start any arguments, but that's just my take on it and I'm open to hearing why it's a bad idea.
Edit: I appreciate the responses, they've cleared up some misconceptions I had and moved my viewpoint a bit.
I hope this doesn't start any arguments, but that's just my take on it and I'm open to hearing why it's a bad idea.
Edit: I appreciate the responses, they've cleared up some misconceptions I had and moved my viewpoint a bit.
The gift tax exists largely to prevent people from avoiding estate tax by gifting large sums of money just before death. That's why they're linked. If there was an estate tax and no gift tax, people would just give all their money away in the years leading up to death.
The gift tax exemption is co-mingled with the estate tax exemption, so you can just think of the gift tax as pre-death estate taxes.
As for why we have an estate tax, the general idea is that oligarcies and plutocracies are bad; that while you should be able to give your kids (and grandkids, and even great-grandkids) every leg up in the world, they should have to work and contribute to society; that the pernicious effects of wealth snowball as generations pass; etc. Add to that the fact that an estate tax has the least negative impact on the taxpayer (and their spouse), given that the taxpayer is dead, it's a pretty good tax. Especially now that the exemption is so high, I feel like the value proposition is pretty good.
The gift tax exemption is co-mingled with the estate tax exemption, so you can just think of the gift tax as pre-death estate taxes.
As for why we have an estate tax, the general idea is that oligarcies and plutocracies are bad; that while you should be able to give your kids (and grandkids, and even great-grandkids) every leg up in the world, they should have to work and contribute to society; that the pernicious effects of wealth snowball as generations pass; etc. Add to that the fact that an estate tax has the least negative impact on the taxpayer (and their spouse), given that the taxpayer is dead, it's a pretty good tax. Especially now that the exemption is so high, I feel like the value proposition is pretty good.
At the generational time frame, the estate tax serves to capture otherwise untaxed asset appreciation…
Consider Grandpa buys an asset; as company, land, a football team, whatever. 50 years later Grandpa dies and his will transfers it to you. If Grandpa had sold it the day before he died and given you the stack of money, he would have been taxed on the appreciation of the investment. If there were no estate tax, then that appreciation would never be exposed to taxation as long as families pass their assets down to heirs.
The estate tax isn't so much about controlling plutocracy as it is leveling the taxation field between people who buy and sell assets and people with so many assets that they don't need to sell them.
Consider Grandpa buys an asset; as company, land, a football team, whatever. 50 years later Grandpa dies and his will transfers it to you. If Grandpa had sold it the day before he died and given you the stack of money, he would have been taxed on the appreciation of the investment. If there were no estate tax, then that appreciation would never be exposed to taxation as long as families pass their assets down to heirs.
The estate tax isn't so much about controlling plutocracy as it is leveling the taxation field between people who buy and sell assets and people with so many assets that they don't need to sell them.
I’d argue that we should eliminate the step up basis at death despite having an estate tax. The estate tax after all only starts at $11 million dollars. Why should an estate with $10 million worth of appreciated assets pay no capital gains and no estate tax?
Why should an estate with $100K worth of appreciated assets pay no capital gains and no estate tax?
Right. I don't see why we need a step up basis at death. If you want to put it at $10,000 or something just to avoid a lot of paperwork for a de minimis tax loss, that'd be fine. But otherwise the tax basis of an asset should be whatever it was bought for, by whoever bought it.
The problem here is that the buyer is dead and knowledge of the basis may be lost. It could be written down in a safe place, but not known to estate's executor.
That was the historic reason, and it certainly had value. In the information age, I think we could consider requiring the recording of cost basic for assets purchased after some date. (The SEC started requiring brokerage firms to record cost basis a few years back, so we're on the way)
Very much depends on the policy country. In Belgium you can gift any arbitrary amount ($10,000, $5m, $100m) through a notarial deed (up to a day) before death and pay 3% "gift tax".
But the estate tax gets to 27% in the low hundreds of thousands.
But the estate tax gets to 27% in the low hundreds of thousands.
Fascinating. Do you see a lot of deathbed transfers of wealth? Certainly, there are some illiquid assets that are going to be hard to transfer at deathbed in any country. In the US, you would see tons of deathbed transfer (they had to create a look-back period for gifts to prevent people from "improvishing" themselves via gifts to kids to qualify for government-paid nursing home care through medicaid). Is it just a cultural difference in Belgium, or something else?
Definitely possible. Most wealthy people do transfers before death and avoid (most of) the estate tax. Normal people with a low net worth generally don't do this, because they are unaware of the avoidance mechanisms.
It's even better - in Belgium you can avoid even the 3% gift tax by simply donating the money AND not dying within 3 years (if you do, however, the donation then gets taxed as if it were part of the inheritance, so it may be worth just paying the gift tax).
In New Zealand you can gift “people for whom you have natural love & affection” any sum and it will not be taxed.
$1k, $100k, $100MM, any amount.
A recent (2011) policy change, remains to be seen how it will play out.
$1k, $100k, $100MM, any amount.
A recent (2011) policy change, remains to be seen how it will play out.
[deleted]
> As for why we have an estate tax, the general idea is that oligarcies and plutocracies are bad
No, the reason we have an estate tax with broad exemptions rather than taxing generational transfers as income is the general idea in the ruling class that oligarchies and plutocracy are good.
No, the reason we have an estate tax with broad exemptions rather than taxing generational transfers as income is the general idea in the ruling class that oligarchies and plutocracy are good.
The original estate tax rate was over 45%, and the exemption was under $1mil. I think you can make the case that the oligarchs and plutocrats have pushed hard to change that law over the past 15 years. They're succeeding, unfortunately.
>> oligarcies and plutocracies are bad
>> the pernicious effects of wealth snowball as generations pass
I feel like the exact situation that our country is in right now is the exact outcome I would fear from such a situation as you describe.
I feel like the exact situation that our country is in right now is the exact outcome I would fear from such a situation as you describe.
At low levels, which aren't taxed, it's not going to affect anything.
At high levels, like giving your kid ten billion dollars, you're making it impractical or impossible for others to advance economically. You're creating a class of people with indestructible inherited wealth that never have to work, that only have to collect interest and rent on the backs of everyone else.
That's what inheritance tax and gift taxes seek to disrupt.
At high levels, like giving your kid ten billion dollars, you're making it impractical or impossible for others to advance economically. You're creating a class of people with indestructible inherited wealth that never have to work, that only have to collect interest and rent on the backs of everyone else.
That's what inheritance tax and gift taxes seek to disrupt.
I don't think so, this certainly has never been effective at that.
I'd say that historically billion dollars fortunes got diluted between the 10 children then the next generation, some of whom might actually burn it stupidly very quickly. Otherwise, it's diluted by wars and calamity.
However, there are no major disaster in the past decades and the number of children per family have dropped dramatically. It surely breaks the balance.
I'd say that historically billion dollars fortunes got diluted between the 10 children then the next generation, some of whom might actually burn it stupidly very quickly. Otherwise, it's diluted by wars and calamity.
However, there are no major disaster in the past decades and the number of children per family have dropped dramatically. It surely breaks the balance.
> I'd say that historically billion dollars fortunes got diluted between the 10 children then the next generation
Throughout history and across most cultures, it was usually the first born son who got the father's legacy and the lion's share of the wealth. It's why it was so important for wives ( especially of the powerful and wealthy ) to produce a male heir. Sometimes it was a matter of life or death. We all know of king henry's wives.
"When Anne failed to quickly produce a male heir, her only son being stillborn, the King grew tired of her, annulled their marriage, and a plot was hatched by Thomas Cromwell to execute her."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wives_of_King_Henry_VI...
Throughout history and across most cultures, it was usually the first born son who got the father's legacy and the lion's share of the wealth. It's why it was so important for wives ( especially of the powerful and wealthy ) to produce a male heir. Sometimes it was a matter of life or death. We all know of king henry's wives.
"When Anne failed to quickly produce a male heir, her only son being stillborn, the King grew tired of her, annulled their marriage, and a plot was hatched by Thomas Cromwell to execute her."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wives_of_King_Henry_VI...
>You're creating a class of people with indestructible inherited wealth that never have to work, that only have to collect interest and rent on the backs of everyone else.
That wealth is invested in profitable ventures that either create benefits in the system (assuming rational actors) or 2) lose value due to poor choices.
Capital is rewarded because the investors are taking opportunity cost risks that advance the sum value of humanity's wealth.
That wealth is invested in profitable ventures that either create benefits in the system (assuming rational actors) or 2) lose value due to poor choices.
Capital is rewarded because the investors are taking opportunity cost risks that advance the sum value of humanity's wealth.
I think you have a profound misunderstanding of what someone with billions of dollars in inherited wealth does with their money.
It's not investing in "profitable ventures" that "create benefits", it's tied up in businesses they inherited, it's squirreled away in tax havens, it's spent on lavish properties, club memberships, expensive cars, and tuition for their children. If you're lucky a tiny fraction of that trickles down in the form of scholarships or charity work.
Then that money generates enough of a return that their kids can inherit billions in turn and the cycle repeats.
There's a point at which you have so much money that you will no longer ever have to work, but your kids will never have to work, and neither will their kids. It has such a heavy gravitational pull that in the long run there's no way you can lose.
If you have even half competent people managing your money an estate worth $10B can pretty much exist forever and grow at or beyond the rate of inflation even when extravagantly luxurious cost of living expenses are deducted. A million dollar a month allowance won't put a dent in this money.
It's not investing in "profitable ventures" that "create benefits", it's tied up in businesses they inherited, it's squirreled away in tax havens, it's spent on lavish properties, club memberships, expensive cars, and tuition for their children. If you're lucky a tiny fraction of that trickles down in the form of scholarships or charity work.
Then that money generates enough of a return that their kids can inherit billions in turn and the cycle repeats.
There's a point at which you have so much money that you will no longer ever have to work, but your kids will never have to work, and neither will their kids. It has such a heavy gravitational pull that in the long run there's no way you can lose.
If you have even half competent people managing your money an estate worth $10B can pretty much exist forever and grow at or beyond the rate of inflation even when extravagantly luxurious cost of living expenses are deducted. A million dollar a month allowance won't put a dent in this money.
> it's spent on lavish properties, club memberships, expensive cars, and tuition for their children.
All of that is trickle down to workers for those jobs
> it's tied up in businesses they inherited
That means the sum benefit to humanity is still going!
> Then that money generates enough of a return that their kids can inherit billions in turn and the cycle repeats.
I cant imagine someone who more deserves to direct the money after their death than the one who earned it. I'm sure many parents (not Buffet though) would rather their child have it than the government.
> If you have even half competent people managing your money an estate worth $10B
I'm sure those half competent people are well compensated for their skills. Shame that billionaires are so evil as to provide those jobs...
All of that is trickle down to workers for those jobs
> it's tied up in businesses they inherited
That means the sum benefit to humanity is still going!
> Then that money generates enough of a return that their kids can inherit billions in turn and the cycle repeats.
I cant imagine someone who more deserves to direct the money after their death than the one who earned it. I'm sure many parents (not Buffet though) would rather their child have it than the government.
> If you have even half competent people managing your money an estate worth $10B
I'm sure those half competent people are well compensated for their skills. Shame that billionaires are so evil as to provide those jobs...
You are missing the point. For a society to work, it's members have to perceive it as somewhat fair. The naive idealist would demand equal opportunity for everyone born. But we humans want to use the means available to us to directly improve out children's opportunities. Our freedom to do so makes our society inherently unfair. Especially when we expect those "investments" like education to pay for themself...
The interesting question is, like always politics, how to balance those trade-offs for bests outcomes.
Yes, that means both giving parents the chance to help their kids while also not having a disillusioned crowd without perspective demanding to tear down society in favor of whatever promises to be better. And yes, that requires some degree of wealth redistribution like decent public eduction.
The interesting question is, like always politics, how to balance those trade-offs for bests outcomes.
Yes, that means both giving parents the chance to help their kids while also not having a disillusioned crowd without perspective demanding to tear down society in favor of whatever promises to be better. And yes, that requires some degree of wealth redistribution like decent public eduction.
Working for less than minimum wage on a temporary worker permit is not in any way 'trickle down'.
These ultra-rich people can dictate terms, can sway policy, in ways you can't even fathom. The person earning almost nothing has no say, no vote, no power at all.
There's no benefit to humanity when all their money is being squirreled away in offshore accounts where it creates only a handful of jobs.
When you're talking about giving something to your kids you usually mean, at most, a million dollars. Estates under $4M aren't even taxed. It's only in cases beyond that where the taxes get stiffer, and they should.
You don't want what happened in Europe where for hundreds of years the same families control everything with almost zero change in the status-quo despite countries and empires coming and going, long, vicious wars, famines, disease and conquest. Money doesn't move down the chain unless you make it move.
Trickle down is what the ultra-rich tell people is going to happen so they can hoover up more money.
In a perfectly ideal society every child born has the same opportunity as any other, they're all free to make it or blow it. That's obviously never going to happen, but letting the ultra-rich maintain their wealth indefinitely creates a permanent and insurmountable advantage for that class to the detriment of everyone else.
These ultra-rich people can dictate terms, can sway policy, in ways you can't even fathom. The person earning almost nothing has no say, no vote, no power at all.
There's no benefit to humanity when all their money is being squirreled away in offshore accounts where it creates only a handful of jobs.
When you're talking about giving something to your kids you usually mean, at most, a million dollars. Estates under $4M aren't even taxed. It's only in cases beyond that where the taxes get stiffer, and they should.
You don't want what happened in Europe where for hundreds of years the same families control everything with almost zero change in the status-quo despite countries and empires coming and going, long, vicious wars, famines, disease and conquest. Money doesn't move down the chain unless you make it move.
Trickle down is what the ultra-rich tell people is going to happen so they can hoover up more money.
In a perfectly ideal society every child born has the same opportunity as any other, they're all free to make it or blow it. That's obviously never going to happen, but letting the ultra-rich maintain their wealth indefinitely creates a permanent and insurmountable advantage for that class to the detriment of everyone else.
assuming rational actor
> Capital is rewarded because the investors are taking opportunity cost risks that advance the sum value of humanity's wealth.
And the vast majority of that advance in humanity's sum wealth accrues in the hands of those very capitalists. How peculiar!
And the vast majority of that advance in humanity's sum wealth accrues in the hands of those very capitalists. How peculiar!
How does someone having $1B of inherited wealth have any impact on my own life?
I’d be paying rent to someone, whether they have $1 or $1B to their name.
I’d be paying rent to someone, whether they have $1 or $1B to their name.
> like giving your kid ten billion dollars, you're making it impractical or impossible for others to advance economically.
Zero-sum is one perspective, but not one that I subscribe to.
Does your neighbor having $10b of stuff make you better or worse off than if than if there's $10b of stuff at the bottom of the ocean?
Zero-sum is one perspective, but not one that I subscribe to.
Does your neighbor having $10b of stuff make you better or worse off than if than if there's $10b of stuff at the bottom of the ocean?
I don't believe the economy is zero-sum either but handing $10B in capital to your child gives them a significantly unfair advantage compared to most others.
Image that the economy is a field of wheat. It grows bigger every year as workers become more productive and learn how to fertilize and water more efficiently. At the end of the season, everyone gets a chance to head into the field and collect some wheat.
Some people don't have any tools. They pick the wheat by hand. Others have managed to fashion scythes and can collect a little more. But, the kid who inherited $10b has a fleet of combines that race into the field and collect 75% of the wheat in a flash.
The economy (wheat field) grew bigger and everyone had a little more wheat but the $10b kid got way more than the others and can now buy another combine for the fleet to get even more next year.
Without some rational tax on inherited wealth, we will create (and already have created in the United States) a plutocracy.
Image that the economy is a field of wheat. It grows bigger every year as workers become more productive and learn how to fertilize and water more efficiently. At the end of the season, everyone gets a chance to head into the field and collect some wheat.
Some people don't have any tools. They pick the wheat by hand. Others have managed to fashion scythes and can collect a little more. But, the kid who inherited $10b has a fleet of combines that race into the field and collect 75% of the wheat in a flash.
The economy (wheat field) grew bigger and everyone had a little more wheat but the $10b kid got way more than the others and can now buy another combine for the fleet to get even more next year.
Without some rational tax on inherited wealth, we will create (and already have created in the United States) a plutocracy.
I'm sorry if someone mislead you into thinking wealth was, or could be, fair.
Your analogy is so far off the mark on how wealth is created, it's laughable.
$10 billion in family wealth is almost never held in cash, it's invested in companies, land, and other ventures. Wherever an investment is made, people are put to work collecting salaries and benefits, generally speaking.
You've made a gross oversimplification, and a misleading one at that.
Your analogy is so far off the mark on how wealth is created, it's laughable.
$10 billion in family wealth is almost never held in cash, it's invested in companies, land, and other ventures. Wherever an investment is made, people are put to work collecting salaries and benefits, generally speaking.
You've made a gross oversimplification, and a misleading one at that.
I never said everything had to be fair. If a worker with a scythe hands it down to their child, that child has an unfair advantage compared to the child of a worker with no tools. It's the degree of the unfairness that matters.
No, not misleading at all. I never said the $10b kid had cash. Obviously, wheat expires (cash) and would be converted into another form of wealth. In this instance, he buys combines which have to be built by someone. You might even say he's a job creator.
But.... and this is a big but.... all investments are not job creating investments. Financial services, speculative investments, automation and robotics that increase worker efficiency but reduce the number of workers. I would argue that the efficiency of $10b in capital in the hands of a single person is far, far less efficient than $10b distributed across many people who use it to consume goods directly. The control of wealth by a small group produces a system where the rules favor the wealthy minority at the expense of the less wealthy. You can only go so far before the guillotines come out and the people take matters into their own hands.
No, not misleading at all. I never said the $10b kid had cash. Obviously, wheat expires (cash) and would be converted into another form of wealth. In this instance, he buys combines which have to be built by someone. You might even say he's a job creator.
But.... and this is a big but.... all investments are not job creating investments. Financial services, speculative investments, automation and robotics that increase worker efficiency but reduce the number of workers. I would argue that the efficiency of $10b in capital in the hands of a single person is far, far less efficient than $10b distributed across many people who use it to consume goods directly. The control of wealth by a small group produces a system where the rules favor the wealthy minority at the expense of the less wealthy. You can only go so far before the guillotines come out and the people take matters into their own hands.
Yeah but a majority of us believe it should be taxed and not just cross our fingers that some jobs are created for a while.
Image the economy is a field of wheat.
Someone comes in with a tractor plough and plants twice a much wheat as last year. There is now lots of food in the economy and bread and pies.
In fact, the tractor plough plants so much wheat year after year that a few of the farmers stop planting and start working on building and maintaining tractors.
Eventually the tractors do well enough and wheat is cheap enough that the some farmers can afford to raise wheat-fed cattle.
Someone comes in with a tractor plough and plants twice a much wheat as last year. There is now lots of food in the economy and bread and pies.
In fact, the tractor plough plants so much wheat year after year that a few of the farmers stop planting and start working on building and maintaining tractors.
Eventually the tractors do well enough and wheat is cheap enough that the some farmers can afford to raise wheat-fed cattle.
Reading to your kids gives them a huge leg up. Should we stop parents from doing that?
It's a problem if you care about any of the measurable real-world consequence of wealth inequality.
It's also a problem if you view it as a symptom of a system that isn't functioning well at giving everyone a fair shake in life, in participating economically or politically.
The number itself isn't a problem, it's what it causes and what it's caused by that's the problem.
Get money out of politics, get everyone a vote and the capacity to use it, make sure everyone's fed and housed adequately, everyone has access to health care and education ... make it so we're living in a Star Trek TNG universe, and I don't care about how much the next guy has either.
Until then, it's worth looking at, at least the very least to help us to see why we don't have all those nice things.
It's also a problem if you view it as a symptom of a system that isn't functioning well at giving everyone a fair shake in life, in participating economically or politically.
The number itself isn't a problem, it's what it causes and what it's caused by that's the problem.
Get money out of politics, get everyone a vote and the capacity to use it, make sure everyone's fed and housed adequately, everyone has access to health care and education ... make it so we're living in a Star Trek TNG universe, and I don't care about how much the next guy has either.
Until then, it's worth looking at, at least the very least to help us to see why we don't have all those nice things.
No, but other people having $10bn of disposable income increases prices for you. Or if you look over the long term, skews the economy towards producing luxury goods rather than meeting the basic needs of ordinary people.
Pretty sure a guy/gal who has $10Bn of disposable income isn’t buying underwear at Target like me, driving up the price.
They're not driving up demand, they're driving down supply, by making it relatively more profitable to make the goods that they do want, and thus relatively less profitable to make budget underwear (and other basic goods).
But owning property in your neighborhood my drive up your rents so you need to move.
What would really make sense -> a wealth tax
What we have instead of that -> an estate tax
What you need to make an estate tax work -> a gift tax
Wealth taxes and income taxes are kind of orthogonal. Why do you need a wealth tax? For the same reason you need a progressive income tax, power naturally accumulates and without a force pushing against that you slide towards feudalism. It's also important to note that wealth doesn't work like "I earned a pile of gold and if I do nothing I/my children will gradually deplete it". Wealth makes higher returns the more wealth you have, returns /above/ inflation, meaning that if you throw it into a managed fund it will make you money (on average) forever. So it's less like you own a pile of gold and more like you own a boatload of land and rent it to other people to passively get you money (equity same deal but more steps). So half the people are born into the world effectively owning not a pile of gold but shares on the other half! (Try earning a living without land, water, telecoms, probably soon air, which we allow people to own). If you don't think this is bad because of some sense of fairness and morality, accept that it's bad because "those who make peaceful revolution..." - eventually you get the French revolution.
Wealth taxes and income taxes are kind of orthogonal. Why do you need a wealth tax? For the same reason you need a progressive income tax, power naturally accumulates and without a force pushing against that you slide towards feudalism. It's also important to note that wealth doesn't work like "I earned a pile of gold and if I do nothing I/my children will gradually deplete it". Wealth makes higher returns the more wealth you have, returns /above/ inflation, meaning that if you throw it into a managed fund it will make you money (on average) forever. So it's less like you own a pile of gold and more like you own a boatload of land and rent it to other people to passively get you money (equity same deal but more steps). So half the people are born into the world effectively owning not a pile of gold but shares on the other half! (Try earning a living without land, water, telecoms, probably soon air, which we allow people to own). If you don't think this is bad because of some sense of fairness and morality, accept that it's bad because "those who make peaceful revolution..." - eventually you get the French revolution.
A common misconception is that gifts within a family are taxed. They are, but only after one exceeds the lifetime limit. That limit is around $11M (per parent). It is true that if you exceed a certain amount per year you have to fill out a form, but that is not to be confused with paying actual tax on the excess gift. It's good that you feel the same about the inheritance tax because it's the same tax code that govern each.
Note that it's only if reportable gifts exclude the limit, nonreportable gifts (below the annual limit) don't count against the lifetime limit.
Also, both limits tend to go up over time, so it's a moving target.
Also, both limits tend to go up over time, so it's a moving target.
You can make an argument that any tax isn't fair. Why should you have to pay a sales tax on money you already paid income taxes for? Why should a company pay a payroll tax to pay their employees?
What really matters is the economic consequences of these taxes. For example, you can't make sales tax too high because it discourages people from buying things and hurts poor people disproportionately. There isn't much of a economic downside to taxing large gifts. Sometimes taxing an inheritance runs the risk of closing a family owned farm or business.
What really matters is the economic consequences of these taxes. For example, you can't make sales tax too high because it discourages people from buying things and hurts poor people disproportionately. There isn't much of a economic downside to taxing large gifts. Sometimes taxing an inheritance runs the risk of closing a family owned farm or business.
Disclaimer: I'm not a tax advisor or anything, just a humble payer.
The notion of "the family" is not a thing unless you're talking about dependents. Transferring money from one person to another is income for the person receiving the money. It's not being taxed twice, just once per time "earned". (and it's not even taxed until the limit per the comment in this thread! TIL)
To allow for these kinds of gifts they limit the amount that is tax free. Allowing unlimited gifts to "family" would likely result in all businesses being "family" businesses, etc etc. Lots of downstream ramifications.
So this seems to answer "how do I help my kids a reasonable amount without being taxed without creating a giant dodge"
Giant dodges are best done using LLCs and ownership by other family members. Typically this overhead costs a lot more to manage though, so it's only available to the super wealthy.
I kid here, a bit. But it's clearly also something being done quite often.
The notion of "the family" is not a thing unless you're talking about dependents. Transferring money from one person to another is income for the person receiving the money. It's not being taxed twice, just once per time "earned". (and it's not even taxed until the limit per the comment in this thread! TIL)
To allow for these kinds of gifts they limit the amount that is tax free. Allowing unlimited gifts to "family" would likely result in all businesses being "family" businesses, etc etc. Lots of downstream ramifications.
So this seems to answer "how do I help my kids a reasonable amount without being taxed without creating a giant dodge"
Giant dodges are best done using LLCs and ownership by other family members. Typically this overhead costs a lot more to manage though, so it's only available to the super wealthy.
I kid here, a bit. But it's clearly also something being done quite often.
> it's only available to the super wealthy.
> I kid here
Indeed, you don't have to be super wealthy to dodge taxes.
In the UK some people who consider themselves poor will happily talk to a solicter about "inheritance tax planning".
https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/family/inheritance-tax-pla...
> I kid here
Indeed, you don't have to be super wealthy to dodge taxes.
In the UK some people who consider themselves poor will happily talk to a solicter about "inheritance tax planning".
https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/family/inheritance-tax-pla...
> if my dad wants to give me $30,001 this year, or even $300,000 this year, that he's already paid taxes on it and it's not the government's business
Surely you agree that if he instead were to hire an extra gardener with the same $30,000, that money would be taxable as the gardener's income? So why should somebody who works for their money pay taxes on it, but not somebody who receives the money as a gift?
Surely you agree that if he instead were to hire an extra gardener with the same $30,000, that money would be taxable as the gardener's income? So why should somebody who works for their money pay taxes on it, but not somebody who receives the money as a gift?
Because the money has already been taxed?
But to your point, a gift tax also stops people from “gifting” their gardener and avoiding taxes on both ends.
But to your point, a gift tax also stops people from “gifting” their gardener and avoiding taxes on both ends.
> Because the money has already been taxed?
I stipulated that it is the SAME money. In both cases, it has "already been taxed" by the person spending the money. Yet in one case, the person receiving the money pays taxes, in the other, they do not.
I stipulated that it is the SAME money. In both cases, it has "already been taxed" by the person spending the money. Yet in one case, the person receiving the money pays taxes, in the other, they do not.
Yes, but one is a business transaction (exchange of goods or services) and one is not.
So i would argue they aren’t the same.
So i would argue they aren’t the same.
[deleted]
I assume therefore that you dutifully calculate and pay income tax on any and all birthday or Christmas presents?
Yes, I have calculated and paid tax on all gifts that I have ever given in excess of the reporting threshold (i.e. none, because I don't give away gifts worth tens of thousands of dollars).
Ditto reply to sibling https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18335478
To the extent that we have received large gifts from relatives, yes, we've reported those accurately to the tax authorities in two different countries. There was no tax due, but I would not have objected philosophically to the gifts being taxed.
Huh, sorry, as a Briton it's quite literally a foreign concept to me; I thought I was joking.
In the UK there's inheritance tax to pay over a threshold if you die within 7 years of making the gift, but otherwise there's not a 'gift tax'.
The situation you describe still isn't the same as declaring it as income though - assuming you are working, if it were taxed at your marginal rate of income tax you'd already be over any threshold no matter how small the gift.
In the UK there's inheritance tax to pay over a threshold if you die within 7 years of making the gift, but otherwise there's not a 'gift tax'.
The situation you describe still isn't the same as declaring it as income though - assuming you are working, if it were taxed at your marginal rate of income tax you'd already be over any threshold no matter how small the gift.
> Maybe this isn't the right place to ask, but could someone explain the rationale for taxing gifts within a family?
Could you explain the rationale for excluding such unearned income, other than privileging generational wealth against wealth earned by personal work and investment?
> Ignoring the possibility of using it to circumvent an income tax, etc., my initial thought is that if my dad wants to give me $30,001 this year, or even $300,000 this year, that he's already paid taxes on it and it's not the government's business.
He's paid tax on his income. When it goes to you, you are the then receiving income—whether it's as a gift or a payment for goods or services, whether you are in the family or not.
Favoring one of those situations over another is just that, favoritism; it's not justifiable by “already paid” logic in one case but not the others.
Could you explain the rationale for excluding such unearned income, other than privileging generational wealth against wealth earned by personal work and investment?
> Ignoring the possibility of using it to circumvent an income tax, etc., my initial thought is that if my dad wants to give me $30,001 this year, or even $300,000 this year, that he's already paid taxes on it and it's not the government's business.
He's paid tax on his income. When it goes to you, you are the then receiving income—whether it's as a gift or a payment for goods or services, whether you are in the family or not.
Favoring one of those situations over another is just that, favoritism; it's not justifiable by “already paid” logic in one case but not the others.
> Could you explain the rationale for excluding such unearned income, other than privileging generational wealth against wealth earned by personal work and investment?
If I buy a round of drinks, do people have to pay tax?
(I assume there's some minimum threshold)
If I buy a round of drinks, do people have to pay tax?
(I assume there's some minimum threshold)
I'm fairly certain the United States Internal Revenue Service would consider the drinks received by others as income they should technically report on their taxes. For practical purposes, I suspect that almost no one ever does report this type of gift, but yes, technically it would qualify.
If I give someone $5 for their birthday, they should report it but won't. If I give them $50,000 for their birthday, they better report it or risk the IRS finding out and coming after them.
If I give someone $5 for their birthday, they should report it but won't. If I give them $50,000 for their birthday, they better report it or risk the IRS finding out and coming after them.
Gifts < $14K not necessary to report
> If I buy a round of drinks, do people have to pay tax?
Ideally, probably, but even in a system which tries to mitigate the advantage of generational wealth created by the current favorable regime of gift and inheritance tax by a purer income tax, the friction of taxing de minimis personal gifts as income to recipients is something you probably want to avoid.
Ideally, probably, but even in a system which tries to mitigate the advantage of generational wealth created by the current favorable regime of gift and inheritance tax by a purer income tax, the friction of taxing de minimis personal gifts as income to recipients is something you probably want to avoid.
They don't, because you do. That's sales tax at work.
Taxes are usually paid each time money moves hands.
Taxes are usually paid each time money moves hands.
If you bought a round of Dalmore 62, then yes, otherwise, no because only gifts of more than $15k per year per person incur the gift tax (and technically, you would pay the tax, because the tax is on the giver and not on the recipient).
It's a fair question. Personally though, I come down on the exact opposite side of the question – all gifts should be highly taxed, with maybe a nominal tax-free allowance of a few thousand dollars.
Making large gifts tax-free is just another big advantage that kids born to rich parents get over those born into less-fortunate circumstances. If we're in favor of equality of opportunity (and almost everyone claims to be), much stronger inheritance/gift taxes seem like a really obvious place to start.
I wrote some thoughts on this a few months ago: https://corbt.com/posts/2018/04/25/a-100-estate-tax.html
Making large gifts tax-free is just another big advantage that kids born to rich parents get over those born into less-fortunate circumstances. If we're in favor of equality of opportunity (and almost everyone claims to be), much stronger inheritance/gift taxes seem like a really obvious place to start.
I wrote some thoughts on this a few months ago: https://corbt.com/posts/2018/04/25/a-100-estate-tax.html
It's not just rich kids that benefit, and it's not just direct gifts that benefit.
If your parents live within commuting distance of London, you can probably take a very low paid job to get a rung on the ladder. Very few outgoings - no rent, no bills. £600/month for season ticket and nights out, and even on minimum wage you'll be saving £5k a year.
If your parents live in say Devon or Yorkshire, you can't do that. You'll be paying £1k a month just for rent.
If your parents live within commuting distance of London, you can probably take a very low paid job to get a rung on the ladder. Very few outgoings - no rent, no bills. £600/month for season ticket and nights out, and even on minimum wage you'll be saving £5k a year.
If your parents live in say Devon or Yorkshire, you can't do that. You'll be paying £1k a month just for rent.
IIRC Switzerland is introducing a "homeowner's tax" - the equivalent to the tax your landlord would be paying on your rent if you were renting instead of owning - essentially, they're considering you're renting to yourself, so you need to pay the tax. Now that's pro-equality (ironically, for Switzerland).
I believe they already have this (it's called "imputed rent") and are considering getting rid of this[1].
[1] https://lenews.ch/2017/08/24/a-swiss-parliamentary-commissio...
[1] https://lenews.ch/2017/08/24/a-swiss-parliamentary-commissio...
> If we're in favor of equality of opportunity (and almost everyone claims to be)
The problem with that notion is that people often talk around each other W.R.T what it actually means. For some people, the only value of that opportunity is to be able to create a better life for their kids, often through inheritance.
The problem with that notion is that people often talk around each other W.R.T what it actually means. For some people, the only value of that opportunity is to be able to create a better life for their kids, often through inheritance.
It's about inheritance taxes. Without a limit, an easy loophole would be that a parent could give all their money to their kids before they die and avoid inheritance tax entirely. (Instead, they need a more complicated loophole using a trust.)
But federal inheritance tax doesn't kick in until you leave over 11 million to an individual, and many states don't have an inheritance tax, so most people won't need to worry about this. (Not legal advice, states differ, etc.)
But federal inheritance tax doesn't kick in until you leave over 11 million to an individual, and many states don't have an inheritance tax, so most people won't need to worry about this. (Not legal advice, states differ, etc.)
> Ignoring the possibility of using it to circumvent an income tax
you can't just ignore the reason why it exist.
you can't just ignore the reason why it exist.
> I feel the same way about inheritance taxes, although those are high enough I'm not too concerned about it.
Having just gone through this, your parents must be really, really wealthy if your inheritance taxes are high. You can inherit many millions of dollars and not pay a cent in taxes in the US.
Having just gone through this, your parents must be really, really wealthy if your inheritance taxes are high. You can inherit many millions of dollars and not pay a cent in taxes in the US.
Some states have their own tax which starts lower. Here in Massachusetts it kicks in at $1MM.
[deleted]
The yearly gift tax exclusion is $15K to each recipient. When it exceeds that, it will count against the lifetime estate tax exclusion which is $5.6M. Only then would they have to worry about the extra taxes. So for an average person they will never reach that limit.
And there are clever tricks to bump up the limits. The two parents can gift to the child/spouse separately to give 4x the gift tax limit.
And there are clever tricks to bump up the limits. The two parents can gift to the child/spouse separately to give 4x the gift tax limit.
AFAIK, many countries do not tax gifts or have an estate tax (ex. Canada).
Governments, like most living things, want to be at the top of the power hierarchy. Families are similar organisms that accrue power similarly. Where families are powerful, governments and corporations are weak. So, governments do things to cripple families so they cannot become powerful enough to be dangerous. Retaining wealth across generations is a thing that makes a family powerful.
Government, like Soylent Green, is people.
The US government has been the pet toy of a small cadre of powerful families for a long time now.
The US government has been the pet toy of a small cadre of powerful families for a long time now.
Explain the rationale for why certain people should be born into a massive inheritance of wealth and power while others are born only to starve to death.
> With the arts, a student may be accepted to an arts program without a scholarship and find herself $200,000 in debt before realizing she isn’t going to be able to get a real paycheck with her arts degree—at least in the next decade.
We need the government to stop backing these bad loans. Any bank that makes enough bad loans will eventually fail, so they try and avoid it. I'd rather see someone say "Well, you can borrow $50k for an arts degree because that's all it's worth" ... Then we'll start to see the market fulfill college options at reasonable prices for artists.
We need the government to stop backing these bad loans. Any bank that makes enough bad loans will eventually fail, so they try and avoid it. I'd rather see someone say "Well, you can borrow $50k for an arts degree because that's all it's worth" ... Then we'll start to see the market fulfill college options at reasonable prices for artists.
Exactly, there are millions of dollars in the arts, but it's all in selling art degrees.
> Any bank that makes enough bad loans will eventually fail, so they try and avoid it.
I wouldn't be so sure, these days (post 2008). _Especially_ if it's a big bank.
I wouldn't be so sure, these days (post 2008). _Especially_ if it's a big bank.
Theoretically college is not supposed to be a purely business transaction.
College isn’t. Loans are.
It's a service, just like any other; and, in the occasion that the customer is able to utilize that service to the full extent, it is also a creation of a valuable good (human capital).
Does anyone have recommendations on how to overcome the resentment I feel against people like the author? I am jealous and frustrated by their advantage, but that opinion is purely negative and doesn't help me at all.
I have none of those advantages either but I am fantastically lucky to be basically perfectly healthy.
I can only imagine what someone in chronic lifelong pain must feel about me.
I can just jump up and run whenever, wherever I feel like and my prescription drug bill each month is zero. Talk about an unfair advantage in life!
I can only imagine what someone in chronic lifelong pain must feel about me.
I can just jump up and run whenever, wherever I feel like and my prescription drug bill each month is zero. Talk about an unfair advantage in life!
This is it right here.
My teeth are horrible. A combination of genetics and an adolescence/pre-college diet of soda, I'd imagine. We're talking trips to the dentist every month or two for fillings, replacing fillings, the odd root canal here and there.
This year was the first year I've ever "used up" all of my dental insurance. Let's count my blessings, first of all: Holy shit am I lucky to have a world class dentist a few blocks away. Holy shit am I lucky to even have dental insurance at all, provided by my employer.
I recently scheduled a root canal for a tooth that's been causing tremendous pain. Crippling, anything touches the tooth and I black out for a couple seconds, creeping into a constant stabbing headache, barely kept under control by OTC pain meds, kind of pain. Without dental insurance, it'll be $600. Can I afford to do this every month? Heck no, this will be the last time I go to the dentist until insurance comes back in 2019.
But how fortunate am I that I can afford to pay for this once? Imagine being told it would cost even a few hundred at a cheaper dentist, you don't have insurance, and you're already counting dollars to make ends meet. Imagine being born in a third world country and you've got this problem; at best you'd just pull the tooth, which is going to create more problems, hopefully better problems.
During one dental procedure in the past I was prescribed Vicodin, 30 pills. I went to the pharmacist; that'll be $3 with insurance. What?!
Pain is a universal human feeling that, if you take a moment, offers an amazing moment of reflection and humility about how lucky most of us are that it's temporary. If you have chronic migraines, or joint pain, or diabetes, or anything like that: it affects everything you can do in life. You can't think clearly. You can't work as hard as your potential. This impacts all the future earnings you'll ever earn.
If you're generally healthy, generally pain free, and have access to healthcare when you're not, you're literally among the luckiest people on the planet.
My teeth are horrible. A combination of genetics and an adolescence/pre-college diet of soda, I'd imagine. We're talking trips to the dentist every month or two for fillings, replacing fillings, the odd root canal here and there.
This year was the first year I've ever "used up" all of my dental insurance. Let's count my blessings, first of all: Holy shit am I lucky to have a world class dentist a few blocks away. Holy shit am I lucky to even have dental insurance at all, provided by my employer.
I recently scheduled a root canal for a tooth that's been causing tremendous pain. Crippling, anything touches the tooth and I black out for a couple seconds, creeping into a constant stabbing headache, barely kept under control by OTC pain meds, kind of pain. Without dental insurance, it'll be $600. Can I afford to do this every month? Heck no, this will be the last time I go to the dentist until insurance comes back in 2019.
But how fortunate am I that I can afford to pay for this once? Imagine being told it would cost even a few hundred at a cheaper dentist, you don't have insurance, and you're already counting dollars to make ends meet. Imagine being born in a third world country and you've got this problem; at best you'd just pull the tooth, which is going to create more problems, hopefully better problems.
During one dental procedure in the past I was prescribed Vicodin, 30 pills. I went to the pharmacist; that'll be $3 with insurance. What?!
Pain is a universal human feeling that, if you take a moment, offers an amazing moment of reflection and humility about how lucky most of us are that it's temporary. If you have chronic migraines, or joint pain, or diabetes, or anything like that: it affects everything you can do in life. You can't think clearly. You can't work as hard as your potential. This impacts all the future earnings you'll ever earn.
If you're generally healthy, generally pain free, and have access to healthcare when you're not, you're literally among the luckiest people on the planet.
That you're posting this is excellent and admirable.
I personally take two approaches when I feel any kind of resentment toward people who seem to have enormous and/or unfair advantages.
I first consider my own objective advantages. Instead of being born into a solid middle class home in Southern California a few decades ago, I could have been born in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Yemen recently, or almost anywhere in the world more than a century ago.
That I am here posting on Hacker News puts me in the (at least) top 1% most fortunate humans who have ever lived.
Secondly, I consistently walk in and practice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism It's kind of my own version of it, I guess a modernized variant of what's found in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meditations
I've found that these perspectives help me with all kinds of psychological challenges.
I personally take two approaches when I feel any kind of resentment toward people who seem to have enormous and/or unfair advantages.
I first consider my own objective advantages. Instead of being born into a solid middle class home in Southern California a few decades ago, I could have been born in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Yemen recently, or almost anywhere in the world more than a century ago.
That I am here posting on Hacker News puts me in the (at least) top 1% most fortunate humans who have ever lived.
Secondly, I consistently walk in and practice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism It's kind of my own version of it, I guess a modernized variant of what's found in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meditations
I've found that these perspectives help me with all kinds of psychological challenges.
There isn't a trick. Resentment is what you feel when you kill yourself over a lifetime to achieve what someone else has given to them. All I can offer is "don't think about it to much".
disclaimer: Just as resentful as you are. I paid for college by enlisting in the military. Glad I could do my little part to keep the country safer for people like her...see? There is that resentment coming on again, it's such a tricky bastard of a feeling.
disclaimer: Just as resentful as you are. I paid for college by enlisting in the military. Glad I could do my little part to keep the country safer for people like her...see? There is that resentment coming on again, it's such a tricky bastard of a feeling.
> Does anyone have recommendations on how to overcome the resentment I feel against people like the author? I am jealous and frustrated by their advantage, but that opinion is purely negative and doesn't help me at all.
I grew up with a number of people who were far more well off than me. One kid made more interest on his inheritance -most of it hadn't even arrived yet- than my parents made all year.
There's pros and cons. The pros you know about. Skiing holidays, expensive cars, everything you can point your finger at.
The cons are a bit more subtle. The feeling of never being able to deserve anything. The feeling of not participating in the struggle of life, which every living creature other than a rich human kid has. Face it, it doesn't matter how yo do on that math test. Frustration when inevitably some kid you know without all the advantages does better than you.
Also concretely rich people are no happier than poor people, above some quite low limit. It's not like the rich kids I knew were much happier than the poor ones, they could be grumpy as well. In fact it seems to be the case that barely anything affects how happy people feel, as long as they've got more than a baseline.
So even if you somehow managed to swap financial situations with some silver spoon kid, chances are you'd not feel any better.
I grew up with a number of people who were far more well off than me. One kid made more interest on his inheritance -most of it hadn't even arrived yet- than my parents made all year.
There's pros and cons. The pros you know about. Skiing holidays, expensive cars, everything you can point your finger at.
The cons are a bit more subtle. The feeling of never being able to deserve anything. The feeling of not participating in the struggle of life, which every living creature other than a rich human kid has. Face it, it doesn't matter how yo do on that math test. Frustration when inevitably some kid you know without all the advantages does better than you.
Also concretely rich people are no happier than poor people, above some quite low limit. It's not like the rich kids I knew were much happier than the poor ones, they could be grumpy as well. In fact it seems to be the case that barely anything affects how happy people feel, as long as they've got more than a baseline.
So even if you somehow managed to swap financial situations with some silver spoon kid, chances are you'd not feel any better.
How are they doing now?
I think that the experiences diverge the most as adults actually. Kids don't have many responsibilities and most go to school. Minimum wage jobs as a teen can actually be fun. You're surrounded by coworkers your age and everyone slacks off. It's low pressure in the sense that you and your coworkers don't care about getting promoted or fired.
As adults, rich kids can choose fulfilling, fun careers (or none at all). The non-rich slave in unfulfilling, soul sucking jobs, constantly worrying about money and retirement.
It's not the cool toys or expensive experiences that make wealth attractive. It's the ability to not work a 9-5 job without the fear of starvation or poverty.
I think that the experiences diverge the most as adults actually. Kids don't have many responsibilities and most go to school. Minimum wage jobs as a teen can actually be fun. You're surrounded by coworkers your age and everyone slacks off. It's low pressure in the sense that you and your coworkers don't care about getting promoted or fired.
As adults, rich kids can choose fulfilling, fun careers (or none at all). The non-rich slave in unfulfilling, soul sucking jobs, constantly worrying about money and retirement.
It's not the cool toys or expensive experiences that make wealth attractive. It's the ability to not work a 9-5 job without the fear of starvation or poverty.
The richest kid still does a 9-5 job. Not sure any of his colleagues know that he has more cash than the CEO. Seems like a happy guy though.
Maybe the resentment (not at her personally, but at the aggregate exploitation her class exacts on those beneath) is a legitimate feeling you should not overcome but instead express at the ballot box.
Compare yourself to who you were yesterday, last month, a year ago. Stop comparing yourself to others, remap comparing yourself against others to comparing yourself against your past self.
I'm not at all surprised that the only (at the time of this comment) response that isn't just "refocus your hate at something else" is the one that's down-voted
Compare yourself to people who you are much more advantaged than? For example, were you born in the United States, or Western Europe? If so, you already probably had a lot of advantages compared to someone in say, Sudan. Did you grow up with parents, especially ones that cared about you and tried to help you improve your life? Lots of people don't have that.
The trick is to look down sometimes too, you're probably more fortunate than some people, should they resent you for it? (the answer could be yes, in which case your resentment is perfectly reasonable, but so is someone else's resentment of you)
The trick is to look down sometimes too, you're probably more fortunate than some people, should they resent you for it? (the answer could be yes, in which case your resentment is perfectly reasonable, but so is someone else's resentment of you)
Imagine alien algae start evolving on a barren rock in a remote planet. Some algae start out closer to water (better geographical location than others). These are the children of those lucky algae. That's basically it.
The solution is to develop a perspective into which you can integrate these kinds of phenomena.
Mine is basically... The world is decidedly unfair. Even though some people, e.g. trust fund kids, are dealt pocket aces at birth, you can't be angered because you'd be grateful it if happened to you. However, being in this class comes with obligations. These people should be aware of this obligation and they should be striving to produce great things with their means. If they don't, then they don't deserve their advantages, they should illicit frustration, and they should be maligned.
Mine is basically... The world is decidedly unfair. Even though some people, e.g. trust fund kids, are dealt pocket aces at birth, you can't be angered because you'd be grateful it if happened to you. However, being in this class comes with obligations. These people should be aware of this obligation and they should be striving to produce great things with their means. If they don't, then they don't deserve their advantages, they should illicit frustration, and they should be maligned.
A stoic would say "If you don't have control over something then don't worry about it."
The trick is to recognize what you do and do not have control over. In relativity you do not control as much as you think.
The trick is to recognize what you do and do not have control over. In relativity you do not control as much as you think.
As someone who has the advantages described but was born in a third world country—I have a perspective that is hard to mesh with other people's opinion of my advantages. Fascinatingly—I've had my own set of difficulties that led to depression and suicidal thoughts. Many of them are family issues. The spectrum of possibilities for feeling fulfilled among humans is just fantastic. Not sure if I have good advice for dealing with the resentment—but the people who helped me get out of the depression were people who could show me that money didn't mean everything. Pretty much all of them came from a lot less. One of them was an orphan from the same third-world country. Who had her brother die in her 20's. And who died from cancer in her 30's. All the best in your journey! Reach out if you'd like. This is something I'd love to understand ever more deeply because I want to teach people to see me for who I am and finding that one thing that really means "Equality of Opportunity" if we can really achieve that.
Gratitude for the things you do have and remembering how fleeting all of it is.
We all die the same in the end, so what really matters?
Jesus said:
“Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; life does not consist in an abundance of possessions.”
16 And he told them this parable: “The ground of a certain rich man yielded an abundant harvest. 17 He thought to himself, ‘What shall I do? I have no place to store my crops.’
18 “Then he said, ‘This is what I’ll do. I will tear down my barns and build bigger ones, and there I will store my surplus grain. 19 And I’ll say to myself, “You have plenty of grain laid up for many years. Take life easy; eat, drink and be merry.”’
20 “But God said to him, ‘You fool! This very night your life will be demanded from you. Then who will get what you have prepared for yourself?’
21 “This is how it will be with whoever stores up things for themselves but is not rich toward God
We all die the same in the end, so what really matters?
Jesus said:
“Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; life does not consist in an abundance of possessions.”
16 And he told them this parable: “The ground of a certain rich man yielded an abundant harvest. 17 He thought to himself, ‘What shall I do? I have no place to store my crops.’
18 “Then he said, ‘This is what I’ll do. I will tear down my barns and build bigger ones, and there I will store my surplus grain. 19 And I’ll say to myself, “You have plenty of grain laid up for many years. Take life easy; eat, drink and be merry.”’
20 “But God said to him, ‘You fool! This very night your life will be demanded from you. Then who will get what you have prepared for yourself?’
21 “This is how it will be with whoever stores up things for themselves but is not rich toward God
What matters are the outputs and not the inputs. The author has all of these resources, but her output is frankly disappointing. You could accomplish more in 6 months than she has in her career if you truly dedicated yourself to the craft. Persistence and dedication still matter more than money.
Probably because I'm older, I am envious of the parents to be able to do this. I have kids getting ready for college. Thankfully they are getting academic scholarships. But to be able to write off the entire schooling and basically set them up for life...that I envy.
I take solace in the fact that I would do the same for my kids if I could. In fact giving your own kids the best possible advantage is such a basic human instinct that I don't think we can ever successfully structure a society to prevent it.
The best I can tell you is - embrace your anger and try to channel it towards something productive for yourself.
Be reasonably selfish and busy, and it brings you too many negative emotions, simply ignore it. There are way too many rich people lacking self-awareness to get angry about.
Be reasonably selfish and busy, and it brings you too many negative emotions, simply ignore it. There are way too many rich people lacking self-awareness to get angry about.
I struggle with the same thing, but I am getting over it. I try to do a better job of being extra proud of myself and my accomplishments. I frame my self-praise with something like 'Look where you started compared to your peers; and now look how far you made it!'
You might find this helpful for providing a different perspective: http://www.globalrichlist.com/
Overthrow the bourgeoisis. ;)
First off - I really dislike it when people deal with blocks of people as if they are a monolith. As if all white people have some innate starting advantage, all black people have some disadvantage, etc. It’s a brutally racist mentality that is very common.
Secondly, poverty is not a lack of money or material wealth. That is part of it and is definitely a symptom. But actual poverty is a culture and a set of habits that easily pass from one generation to the next. The idea that just injecting money at the lowest levels of society will fix this is absurd. This is a multi generational problem that will not be fixed with money. I don’t know a better answer, but I think about it a lot.
Secondly, poverty is not a lack of money or material wealth. That is part of it and is definitely a symptom. But actual poverty is a culture and a set of habits that easily pass from one generation to the next. The idea that just injecting money at the lowest levels of society will fix this is absurd. This is a multi generational problem that will not be fixed with money. I don’t know a better answer, but I think about it a lot.
> I really dislike it when people deal with blocks of people as if they are a monolith. As if all white people have some innate starting advantage, all black people have some disadvantage, etc. It’s a brutally racist mentality that is very common.
Dislike it all you want, but observing realities that are often shared within blocks of people (as opposed to randomly distributed across every slice of every group of population) and daring to discuss them (out loud!) in a moderately visible venue should not be seen as problematic, and certainly not as "a brutally racist mentality".
Dislike it all you want, but observing realities that are often shared within blocks of people (as opposed to randomly distributed across every slice of every group of population) and daring to discuss them (out loud!) in a moderately visible venue should not be seen as problematic, and certainly not as "a brutally racist mentality".
It’s not discussed. It’s casually accepted by many even though there is no evidence for it and evidence against it is ignored or hand waved away.
All white people do have some innate starting advantage due to their whiteness. That isn't to say they don't also have disadvantages too, for instance poverty, disability etc.
Having white skin though gives you an advantage in a system that prioritises whiteness over other colours. Its not racist to discuss this.
Having white skin though gives you an advantage in a system that prioritises whiteness over other colours. Its not racist to discuss this.
RE: "All white people": You are a white person living in Eastern Europe. How's your advantage now?
Compared to a black person living in the same place and going to the same school and having the same number of living parents with the same jobs and same dedication to success, probably very good. Please remember to keep other factors equal when comparing aspects of demography. Otherwise you've just strayed off into the wilderness of logical fallacyland.
Ok, you’re a white farmer living in South Africa.
How’s you’re whiteness helping you now?
How’s you’re whiteness helping you now?
Quick couple of questions for you...
What percentage of farm land in South Africa is currently owned by white people? Answer: 72% How does that compare to the demographic breakdown of the South African population? Answer: White people make up 9% of the population. Question: In what year did SA repeal The Natives Land Act of 1913? Answer: 1991. What did The Natives Land Act of 1913 do? Among other things, it made it illegal for non-whites to buy land except from other non-whites. What percentage of South African farmland was owned by white people in 1994? Answer: 86% So how much land could non-white farmers own just because they weren't white? Very little. How long ago? Very recently.
So if you're a white South African farmer, your enduring privilege, like it or not, is that non-white South African farmers were almost certainly not allowed to buy that land until very recently. It's much harder to be a farmer without land. So then we need to ask, how did this white farmer in South Africa get there?
It's important to recognize that your life is structured, harmed, hindered, buoyed, and improved by violence that happened even before you were born, that you had no control over, and that you would even not choose to support today. That doesn't mean you live in a vacuum.
What percentage of farm land in South Africa is currently owned by white people? Answer: 72% How does that compare to the demographic breakdown of the South African population? Answer: White people make up 9% of the population. Question: In what year did SA repeal The Natives Land Act of 1913? Answer: 1991. What did The Natives Land Act of 1913 do? Among other things, it made it illegal for non-whites to buy land except from other non-whites. What percentage of South African farmland was owned by white people in 1994? Answer: 86% So how much land could non-white farmers own just because they weren't white? Very little. How long ago? Very recently.
So if you're a white South African farmer, your enduring privilege, like it or not, is that non-white South African farmers were almost certainly not allowed to buy that land until very recently. It's much harder to be a farmer without land. So then we need to ask, how did this white farmer in South Africa get there?
It's important to recognize that your life is structured, harmed, hindered, buoyed, and improved by violence that happened even before you were born, that you had no control over, and that you would even not choose to support today. That doesn't mean you live in a vacuum.
Don’t know why you’re being downvoted. Not a lot of white privilege going on in South Africa right now.
You do realize apartheid ended not long ago in South Africa, right? If you chose something like South Korea maybe this would make more sense.
On the one hand, while homeless, being white very much helped protect me most of the time from things like simply being thrown off the premises. (Though certainly not always.)
Just as poverty isn't about lack of money per se, white privilege mostly isn't about money per se either. As you say, the money (or lack thereof) is really a symptom.
On the other hand, I also have a predominantly Caucasian genetic disorder classified as a dread disease because of the horrors it inflicts upon your life. So being white absolutely comes with a very huge downside for me.
I mostly don't get a lot of sympathy for that. I mostly get attacked and told I'm making crap up.
I wish we could default to seeing each other as spirits in a material world and try harder to find solutions, not scapegoats.
/2cents
Just as poverty isn't about lack of money per se, white privilege mostly isn't about money per se either. As you say, the money (or lack thereof) is really a symptom.
On the other hand, I also have a predominantly Caucasian genetic disorder classified as a dread disease because of the horrors it inflicts upon your life. So being white absolutely comes with a very huge downside for me.
I mostly don't get a lot of sympathy for that. I mostly get attacked and told I'm making crap up.
I wish we could default to seeing each other as spirits in a material world and try harder to find solutions, not scapegoats.
/2cents
"But actual poverty is a culture and a set of habits that easily pass from one generation to the next."
Wow.
Wow.
[deleted]
I disagree with her premise that the government should fund people to have fulfilling creative careers. That's not how the world works. Creative outputs generally do not have 'efficienciecy' increases like other fields. Creative outputs are zero sum: people only have a constant amount of time to use to consume creative outputs and consumption time has already been saturated.
Efficiency upgrades for entertainment are tied to technology advancement (think the invention of TV, electronic audio devices, VR, video games), not creative output.
Efficiency upgrades for entertainment are tied to technology advancement (think the invention of TV, electronic audio devices, VR, video games), not creative output.
The "creative" part of that sentence is purely from her (super biased) viewpoint. The idea is letting people pursue /a career of their choosing/ rather than being stuck at a low-paying job with no opportunity to change that. She wants people to choose arts, but many would choose a real-world job that interests them. (Ex. a housekeeper has a passion for political issues and wants to work in the government, but has no time/energy/money to pursue it).
I disagree heavily with this. There's been a lot of improvement in the quality and variety of entertainment too over the years not just the technology used to deliver them. If restricted to media from say mid century America post TV most people would be bored stiff by the material available.
It's REALLY easy to wind up with a dismissive attitude towards the arts growing up and working in tech but never forget how much there's a feedback loop between artistic exploration and technological advances and how even a modern 'clean' design encodes a lot of artistic choice behind the scenes.
It's REALLY easy to wind up with a dismissive attitude towards the arts growing up and working in tech but never forget how much there's a feedback loop between artistic exploration and technological advances and how even a modern 'clean' design encodes a lot of artistic choice behind the scenes.
Also, art does not only have a function in terms of entertainment. Art is vital to human expression, and a very powerful tool to propose an idea or "mood".
cities would be terrible without public art for example, they would be dull, gray concrete silos of empty existance.
cities would be terrible without public art for example, they would be dull, gray concrete silos of empty existance.
Oh yeah there was a lot more I'd love to say about how arts quietly improve everyone's millieu even without active conscious consumption. But I figured I'd better edit myself and not go off on a long rambling rant about the pervasive dismissal of art and the siloing of society into useful and non useful work based principally on what value can be captured, commoditized and quantified in the US in particular.
One can both appreciate the arts and believe that taxpayers shouldn’t be subsidizing arts careers.
> Creative outputs are zero sum..
> Efficiency upgrades for entertainment are tied to technology advancement (think the invention of TV, electronic audio devices, VR, video games), not creative output.
I was largely reacting to these two lines though I also think if we're talking about large scale subsidization, ie a basic income or whatever it may become, saying we shouldn't subsidize something must mean it's significantly less valuable than other work. (Which since we're on HN generally means tech is pretty high up on the value list)
But back to the meat of what I was responding to. I disagree that entertainment is zero sum, even if a creative work isn't consumed by a particular person directly it still goes into the cultural millieu and contributes to the texture of society where it can enrich indirectly.
And the second line just reeked of dismissing the increased space for expression driven by new technologies in favor of looking at just the raw amount of consumption that can be done.
> Efficiency upgrades for entertainment are tied to technology advancement (think the invention of TV, electronic audio devices, VR, video games), not creative output.
I was largely reacting to these two lines though I also think if we're talking about large scale subsidization, ie a basic income or whatever it may become, saying we shouldn't subsidize something must mean it's significantly less valuable than other work. (Which since we're on HN generally means tech is pretty high up on the value list)
But back to the meat of what I was responding to. I disagree that entertainment is zero sum, even if a creative work isn't consumed by a particular person directly it still goes into the cultural millieu and contributes to the texture of society where it can enrich indirectly.
And the second line just reeked of dismissing the increased space for expression driven by new technologies in favor of looking at just the raw amount of consumption that can be done.
What improvement in quality? I'd argue that most improvment is due to increased efficiency of information retrieval, content creation and content delivery, all driven by technological advancement.
I agree that diversity of entertainment options is important, but we're well past the saturation point even without subsidization.
I agree that diversity of entertainment options is important, but we're well past the saturation point even without subsidization.
[deleted]
Arts is not mere entertainment.
Students with an arts rich education:
Have better grade point averages
Score better on standardized tests in reading and math
Have lower dropout rates
http://www.artsactionfund.org/pages/why
Students with an arts rich education:
Have better grade point averages
Score better on standardized tests in reading and math
Have lower dropout rates
http://www.artsactionfund.org/pages/why
Are you saying people should pursue art as a primary occupation because it makes them better at math? That seems a bit backwards.
I'm saying the idea that the arts are frivolous is in error and I'm saying not supporting the arts impoverishes us all.
Those seem to all be effects of being rich.
You probably have the causation reversed, FWIW.
> That's not how the world works.
That's not how it works right now. Some want that future and are working to make it happen.
That's not how it works right now. Some want that future and are working to make it happen.
True, but what if being creative, or the act of creation, even if not consumed, leads to more happiness and self-fulfillment?
Edit : as an example, the explosion of lines of code accessible on the internet is a new form of expression for some people. They are not paid to do it, yet they do it anyway, because they enjoy it. Not all that code is consumed, however.
Edit : as an example, the explosion of lines of code accessible on the internet is a new form of expression for some people. They are not paid to do it, yet they do it anyway, because they enjoy it. Not all that code is consumed, however.
My guess is this is of interest to us because it sounds an awful lot like UBI. But, I think the key difference is that the money is connected to parents, who presumably have a standard for how it's spent. If E.J. ended up spending it on drugs or other perceived vices, there's a chance the money might be cut off. The point of UBI is that it is 100% no-strings-attached, which has a different dynamic. That dynamic is one that concerns the anti-UBI people.
People treat drug users as if this was something that they chose to do. In fact, most drug addicts are in this situation because they suffer from a tendency to drug abuse. Many of them had good jobs and lost them because of this condition. Holding up on the UBI program for everyone else because of the behavior of a few that need treatment is absurd.
I disagree.
Of course there are many people with great jobs, that then developed a drug dependency that cost them.
However, I'd counter that initial poverty (financial, parental, societal, educational - take your pick) is something that provides a fertile group to grow addiction.
UBI would help remedy this.
And quite frankly if somebody wishes to use their UBI to pay towards a crack addiction, then it works out cheaper for society than cleaning up their mess.
Nobody is compelled to take methamphetamines or heroin, especially not the first time. Yes, physical addiction is a beastly problem beyond simply quitting cold turkey - but you sort of put yourself in that boat to begin with.
It's a bit like not knowing how to swim, and deciding to jump into the ocean. If you don't know how to swim, don't jump in the ocean.
It's a bit like not knowing how to swim, and deciding to jump into the ocean. If you don't know how to swim, don't jump in the ocean.
Since we're using bad analogies I would argue its more like being offered a piece of delicious candy and its great and you continue to eat the candy and its fine.
Eventually you wake up one day and decide you've been gaining too much weight and you try to stop eating the candy but to your surprise, over the past several months or years your brain chemistry has been subtly changed and now your physical well-being and mental state is literally tied to you continuing to eat the candy.
You can't stop and if you do you're in horrible pain and can't go to work, if you don't go to work you lose your job and if you want to keep working and not be homeless you keep eating the candy.
Eventually you wake up one day and decide you've been gaining too much weight and you try to stop eating the candy but to your surprise, over the past several months or years your brain chemistry has been subtly changed and now your physical well-being and mental state is literally tied to you continuing to eat the candy.
You can't stop and if you do you're in horrible pain and can't go to work, if you don't go to work you lose your job and if you want to keep working and not be homeless you keep eating the candy.
Except most people know that heroin isn't like candy. The side effects and consequences of snorting a few lines of cocaine isn't some secret.
Most people think heroin isn't like candy.
The physical dependence is the same, and there are 4 times as many deaths that can be linked to sugar as drugs per year in the US.
The only difference is that heroin is illegal and costs a lot more than candy.
The physical dependence is the same, and there are 4 times as many deaths that can be linked to sugar as drugs per year in the US.
The only difference is that heroin is illegal and costs a lot more than candy.
Firstly, "linked to sugar" is not "squarely caused by sugar".
Secondly, sugar use is extremely widespread. Much more so than use of heroin. Few people avoid ingesting some sugar.
Even if there were 4 times as many deaths confirmed to be squarely caused by sugar, that alone shows sugar to be far safer, since it has far more than 4 times the users.
But never mind, let's look at, oh, the lethal dose (LD50) info. For sugar, that is supposedly something like 30 g/kg. The LD50 for heroin (intravenous) is something like 20 mg/kg: more than a thousand times less.
Plus there is copious sugar in your bloodstream without which you'd be in hypoglycemic shock leading to death.
Secondly, sugar use is extremely widespread. Much more so than use of heroin. Few people avoid ingesting some sugar.
Even if there were 4 times as many deaths confirmed to be squarely caused by sugar, that alone shows sugar to be far safer, since it has far more than 4 times the users.
But never mind, let's look at, oh, the lethal dose (LD50) info. For sugar, that is supposedly something like 30 g/kg. The LD50 for heroin (intravenous) is something like 20 mg/kg: more than a thousand times less.
Plus there is copious sugar in your bloodstream without which you'd be in hypoglycemic shock leading to death.
> Firstly, "linked to sugar" is not "squarely caused by sugar".
Correct - the same goes for "Linked to drugs" and "squarely caused by drugs".
> that alone shows sugar to be far safer
Sugar is safer than cocaine, but that does not make it safe. I shouldn't have said the only difference - sorry.
> But never mind, let's look at, oh, the lethal dose (LD50) info
This is too narrowly focused - the LD50 only refers to the immediate effects of a substance, not the long lasting effects. I'd argue that long lasting effects are more dangerous as they're less apparent.
> Plus there is copious sugar in your bloodstream without which you'd be in hypoglycemic shock leading to death.
Yes, our bodies need sugar and create it from the food we eat. I was talking about the food we call sugar ("Sugar is the generic name for sweet-tasting, soluble carbohydrates, many of which are used in food.)
I should use "added sugar" or "refined sugar".
Correct - the same goes for "Linked to drugs" and "squarely caused by drugs".
> that alone shows sugar to be far safer
Sugar is safer than cocaine, but that does not make it safe. I shouldn't have said the only difference - sorry.
> But never mind, let's look at, oh, the lethal dose (LD50) info
This is too narrowly focused - the LD50 only refers to the immediate effects of a substance, not the long lasting effects. I'd argue that long lasting effects are more dangerous as they're less apparent.
> Plus there is copious sugar in your bloodstream without which you'd be in hypoglycemic shock leading to death.
Yes, our bodies need sugar and create it from the food we eat. I was talking about the food we call sugar ("Sugar is the generic name for sweet-tasting, soluble carbohydrates, many of which are used in food.)
I should use "added sugar" or "refined sugar".
You're right. Peoples' doctors rarely tell them to take anything that will risk them getting hooked on candy.
[deleted]
If they started taking prescription painkillers for chronic pain or post-surgery, then they kind of were compelled to do it, weren't they?
"A study of young, urban injection drug users interviewed in 2008 and 2009 found that 86 percent had used opioid pain relievers nonmedically prior to using heroin... Of people entering treatment for heroin addiction who began abusing opioids in the 1960s, more than 80 percent started with heroin. Of those who began abusing opioids in the 2000s, 75 percent reported that their first opioid was a prescription drug."[0]
What if they're being intentionally coerced by pharma?
[0]: https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/rela...
What if they're being intentionally coerced by pharma?
[0]: https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/rela...
That seems like a correlation argument. I'm sure at least 86% of those users had also been exposed to cell phones and sugar.
Even if that correlation shows causation, that's a big jump to: > What if they're being intentionally coerced by pharma?
Even if that correlation shows causation, that's a big jump to: > What if they're being intentionally coerced by pharma?
[deleted]
No, it's not absurd. Most people don't want to give money to people who are not immediate family. And they especially don't want to give money to people who are not immediate family and who are pissing their lives away. And I wouldn't count on this changing anytime soon, since it's probably a trait which evolved to counteract cheaters and free-riders in the small-scale societies that defined our evolutionary past.
We already provide a UBI to an entire demographic of people who are hopelessly dependant on drugs and mostly just sit around watching TV. It actually works out just fine. We call them seniors and their UBI social security.
You're not kidding. Old folks watch so much TV. While they were still able to start conversations, my grandparents were always starting off with "did you see that thing on TV?"
Now I'm wishing I could have that conversation one more time...
Now I'm wishing I could have that conversation one more time...
The point is that the average person doesn't get $28000 a year. A landlord won't raise the rent of the author just because he has more money.
Why not? That's literally the most obvious thing to do as a landlord.
For the same reason a grocery store doesn't charge you more for milk just because you're rich: if they did, you'd simply shop elsewhere.
You know what happens if you raise your tenant's rent because you learned they have more money now? They move, and now you're losing money as you are trying to find a new tenant.
You know what happens if you raise your tenant's rent because you learned they have more money now? They move, and now you're losing money as you are trying to find a new tenant.
Apartments are sticky in the way grocery stores aren't. Moving to another place is expensive (in effort, money and social costs), and while the landlord can't just triple your price overnight and hope you stay, they can raise your rent in increments.
I think it's of interest to us because wealthy people so rarely speak so candidly about their wealth and the advantages it gives them.
> If E.J. ended up spending it on drugs or other perceived vices, there's a chance the money might be cut off.
But there's no reason why if someone was being self-destructive, a judge couldn't just freeze their ability to spend some portion of their money until they had their life straightened out.
But there's no reason why if someone was being self-destructive, a judge couldn't just freeze their ability to spend some portion of their money until they had their life straightened out.
> an awful lot like UBI. But, I think the key difference is that ... parents ... have a standard for how it's spent.
There's another important difference from UBI, that only a few kids now get this $28k. So being one of them, you can out-bid the others on having a nice apartment... whose price would otherwise rise.
This applies to work too: she could get ahead artistically by being able to write full time. Ahead of the competition, that is, who had to work. UBI wouldn't have given her that advantage.
There's another important difference from UBI, that only a few kids now get this $28k. So being one of them, you can out-bid the others on having a nice apartment... whose price would otherwise rise.
This applies to work too: she could get ahead artistically by being able to write full time. Ahead of the competition, that is, who had to work. UBI wouldn't have given her that advantage.
that's a simplistic analysis that doesn't really capture the whole effect a universal basic income might have. For one, with a livable basic income, the value of housing shifts somewhat--since there's not essentially a requirement to have a job, the demand for housing-near-jobs changes. It is hard to predict exactly what direction that might shift in.
The competitive environment around an artistic endeavor changes too--you have the ability to experiment and fail and not be forced out entirely, since you can fall back and change things up without having to worry about finding a job. And it might not be the case that everyone looking for a creative outlet is looking to make it into a living.
The competitive environment around an artistic endeavor changes too--you have the ability to experiment and fail and not be forced out entirely, since you can fall back and change things up without having to worry about finding a job. And it might not be the case that everyone looking for a creative outlet is looking to make it into a living.
Indeed, UBI is uncharted territory, so it's not obvious what would happen. I only meant that we should be very cautious about extrapolating.
I'm not convinced that the changes in competition would be in the direction you mention. It could be that even more people would like to live in Vancouver, if only their jobs weren't keeping them elsewhere.
It could also be that the artistic environment is more about competition for audience, and for status, than about creative outlet. As a datapoint, the world of the '80s had lots of small-time newspaper photographers, and commercial photographers, most serving a local market. The world of the '10s instead has instagram stars, and is in some sense much more competitive, much more unequal in terms of who gets their work seen.
I'm not convinced that the changes in competition would be in the direction you mention. It could be that even more people would like to live in Vancouver, if only their jobs weren't keeping them elsewhere.
It could also be that the artistic environment is more about competition for audience, and for status, than about creative outlet. As a datapoint, the world of the '80s had lots of small-time newspaper photographers, and commercial photographers, most serving a local market. The world of the '10s instead has instagram stars, and is in some sense much more competitive, much more unequal in terms of who gets their work seen.
Yeah, my parents just started sending me $30,000 dollar checks this year and the first thing they said to me was "We aren't giving you this money so you can go off and buy a Maserati".
[deleted]
Boy, does reading this make me a bit frustrated/jealous. Some people are just incredibly lucky (at no fault of their own!). I would write more, but it would be more therapeutic for me than entertaining to read for you. I also found the author referencing gender/race distracting(?), this situation could happen to anyone.
If you do find this type of stuff about what the wealthy do with their wealth interesting, I highly recommend a book called `Millionaire Next Door`
If you do find this type of stuff about what the wealthy do with their wealth interesting, I highly recommend a book called `Millionaire Next Door`
As someone whose parents don't even earn/live off 28k/yr USD, I can relate to this feeling.
I didn't find the author referencing gender or race distracting, though I did find it very simplified/101 level. And yet she's still probably more self aware than her lucky peers...
I didn't find the author referencing gender or race distracting, though I did find it very simplified/101 level. And yet she's still probably more self aware than her lucky peers...
I am consistently frustrated/annoyed/jealous by most of my friends whose parents paid tuition, rent, etc. I am more annoyed that I hold that opinion though; its something I wish I could let go and forget but I can't seem to do it.
I guess it’s to look on the positive side. Like for me, I luckily went to college, making good career progression, and will have my loans paid off in the next 5 years with aggressive paying and money management. Many people don’t even make it to whatever step 0 is of that progression list.
> That’s a $22.4 million of unearned income for the children of the rich, whereas the working class get taxed on their first dollar earned.
A person could at least argue that my parents earned the capital they live off of. But me? I didn’t actually earn it.
At least she is self aware. Most people have a blind spot when they are the receiving end. For example, "This was my Grandpa's watch." is more often said than "I bought this apartment with my Grandpa's $500,000". The original ownership of physical items is flaunted, the original ownership of money is quickly hidden.
Nitpick, but this is not quite true. There is the Earned Income Credit, as well as various welfare payments that working class are entitled to.
For a single adult with no children EIC goes away at $15,000; that is a full time job at less than $6/hr. The 'working' class shouldn't need be dependent on welfare and assistance programs.
[deleted]
how are working class taxed on first dollar earned? most dont pay any federal income tax.
> how are working class taxed on first dollar earned?
Payroll tax
Payroll tax
Even if it's a benefit you are still taxed SS and Medicare no matter how little you earn.
Archive url: http://archive.is/gBd5I
Small sample size, but I happen to know multiple people in their thirties and forties whose parents continue to fund their 'creative' lives. I can assure you they are not as happy as you think free money might make you.
It's not guaranteed happiness but getting 30k a year guaranteed would make my life much more secure.
That's because their standards for happiness has increased.
Trust me. If their parents suddenly stopped giving them money, then their state of happiness would be lower than before.
Trust me. If their parents suddenly stopped giving them money, then their state of happiness would be lower than before.
Wow.
I'd love to hear a perspective from a parent funding their middle aged children's creative lives. Do they feel like they've failed to make their children self sufficient?
I'd love to hear a perspective from a parent funding their middle aged children's creative lives. Do they feel like they've failed to make their children self sufficient?
Probably just an ideological difference to you. If you're rich enough to support them throughout your life (& after death), why is it important that your kids are self sufficient?
Maybe they think being able to practice their creativity/art/passion would have a bigger effect on their kids' happiness than knowledge that they are self sufficient.
Maybe they think being able to practice their creativity/art/passion would have a bigger effect on their kids' happiness than knowledge that they are self sufficient.
I know a few too, including one talented artist who decided to go to law school because she wanted financial independence from her wealthy parents who would've happily funded her artist life style in perpetuity. She is a lawyer at a financial firm doing just fine money wise, but she isn't happy.
Another friend of mine in his 40s is a full time artist, with a very supportive wife backing him. He still beats himself up for not being the provider.
Another friend of mine in his 40s is a full time artist, with a very supportive wife backing him. He still beats himself up for not being the provider.
[deleted]
I know so many people who call into this in NYC and LA.
[deleted]
> I get an annual gift of $28,000, distributed, in my case, in monthly checks mailed to my house for $2000 and $334 (to make it easier to deposit remotely), completely tax free.
Why would this be necessary? The IRS knows this money is being distributed. What difference does it make if it comes as an annual lump sum?
Why would this be necessary? The IRS knows this money is being distributed. What difference does it make if it comes as an annual lump sum?
I'm not sure, but I think $2000 is the maximum amount she can deposit as a check using her bank's app. In this case, "remotely" meaning she doesn't have to go to an ATM or bank teller. As for not giving it all in $28k, I don't think this is an IRS issue, but a personal preference of the benefactors.
I don't understand why they don't just set up a standing order.
And I'm sure I'm not the only one with a twich about having a $2000 cheque and a $334 check, rather than 2 cheques of $1167
And I'm sure I'm not the only one with a twich about having a $2000 cheque and a $334 check, rather than 2 cheques of $1167
The article made it seem like it was for living expenses at one point which are typically monthly things? Perhaps they just got lazy and kept the same mechanism going. It doesn't matter if it's lump sum or monthly to the IRS, as you indicate.
Other potential reasons: - Banks do this for free via their web apps and it's easy to set up. Other services charge for larger one-time fees / wire transfers - SWIFT tracking if that's a factor? - A 28K one-time check would require branch access. Typically anything at a smaller dollar level is OK and under the monthly limit / single-check limit. If you don't live near a branch this is helpful (though one-time exemptions are relatively "easy" to negotiate. - Returns / payouts on capital might generate this cash on a monthly basis?
Other potential reasons: - Banks do this for free via their web apps and it's easy to set up. Other services charge for larger one-time fees / wire transfers - SWIFT tracking if that's a factor? - A 28K one-time check would require branch access. Typically anything at a smaller dollar level is OK and under the monthly limit / single-check limit. If you don't live near a branch this is helpful (though one-time exemptions are relatively "easy" to negotiate. - Returns / payouts on capital might generate this cash on a monthly basis?
My guess is that their bank's app places a $2000 limit per check for deposits.
Most likely the parents' income doesn't come in as an annual lump sum either.
[deleted]
Strange that people who have so much money to throw around waste their time on paper checks. Maybe it's intentional, in hopes that the child will feel a consequence of losing a check?
It's so she doesn't get the 28k at once and spend it one something stupid, like a new car or a designer handbag.
Her parents might also be getting her bank statement monthly and check what is going on.
Her parents might also be getting her bank statement monthly and check what is going on.
> Still, when my parents told me they were going to give me about $2,000 a month, [...] I took it, spent part of it helping my then-boyfriend pay off his student loans and put the rest in the bank.
> When my boyfriend suddenly left me (as men in New York are occasionally known to do), I had to pay $1,450 a month for rent on my own ($17,400 a year) on the lease we had just started, not including utilities. I quickly drained my own savings and found myself completely dependent on the gift money from my parents.
Why spend your money on another when they can just leave you later? They won't give you that money back. What did he do to earn your money (parents') to pay his student loans off?
> When my boyfriend suddenly left me (as men in New York are occasionally known to do), I had to pay $1,450 a month for rent on my own ($17,400 a year) on the lease we had just started, not including utilities. I quickly drained my own savings and found myself completely dependent on the gift money from my parents.
Why spend your money on another when they can just leave you later? They won't give you that money back. What did he do to earn your money (parents') to pay his student loans off?
Even marriage doesn't guarantee safety from a break-up, yet most marriages split finances. Suppose you thought with all sincerity you would get married, then helping your partner makes rational sense, especially if your partner is paying interest on a loan. That's your future joint account being drained.
To be fair, the level of commitment in a marriage is much higher.
Caring about a person can make you do nice things for them and support them even if that results in a financial loss. If one is of good character, and able to help someone they have a good relationship with, they will do so.
My concern was more about responsibility. I do and buy things for my friends, like dinner, or presents, but I'm not going to pay for their student loans because that's a significant burden that would place me in a financially unstable situation (as the author admits herself to).
I agree with a lot of this article, but the answer here is definitely not to enable more people to go into the arts on the public dime. If you want free college, let's have it be free for everything except the arts. If you want to get an MBA, or learn mechanical engineering, i'm happy to subsidize that. But I have no interest whatsoever in subsidizing your creative writing degree.
Serious question, I'm wondering, why you, personally, value other people getting MBA/Engineering degrees over arts?
I really enjoy going to the theater and seeing performances of all kind, just as I like tech/business advances. I want people to enhance the arts as well as the sciences.
I acknowledge the idea of focusing on marketability and "ROI" for someone choosing their own path... However, when providing "access" to education, why encourage someone who could write the next show I want to see to instead consider crunching hard maths that they don't care about?
I really enjoy going to the theater and seeing performances of all kind, just as I like tech/business advances. I want people to enhance the arts as well as the sciences.
I acknowledge the idea of focusing on marketability and "ROI" for someone choosing their own path... However, when providing "access" to education, why encourage someone who could write the next show I want to see to instead consider crunching hard maths that they don't care about?
> Serious question, I'm wondering, why you, personally, value other people getting MBA/Engineering degrees over arts?
Because they increase GDP, and thereby pay back their education in the form of income taxes, and increase the available wealth for everyone.
Because they increase GDP, and thereby pay back their education in the form of income taxes, and increase the available wealth for everyone.
Alternatively, GDP Or no, I value their artistic output over your ability to target ads on a CRUD app.
I guess you don't care about the millions of people living in poverty, then?
Previous posts of this same article:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18324359
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18316647
Internal server error (HN hug of death?). Anyone got an alternate link in the meantime?
Here you go: http://archive.is/gBd5I
Same problem. Then I saw the domain name: ejroller.com and associated it with jroller and everything made sense. I wonder if that happened to others...
Perhaps some of that 28,000 could pay for some upgraded hosting.
> while I agree that society is, often, skewed to favor those SWGs (bless their hearts), it’s amazing how little time we spend discussing the largest, most obvious barrier to new voices in the arts: money.
This is IMO the most important achievement of feminism: convincing people that sex, sexuality or race are more important in life than class or money. As they say, first you divide, and then you conquer.
This is IMO the most important achievement of feminism: convincing people that sex, sexuality or race are more important in life than class or money. As they say, first you divide, and then you conquer.
[deleted]
Why so many reposts of the same article in such a short period of time
https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=ejroller.com
https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=ejroller.com
Somebody semi-important in the tech industry probably tweeted about it recently.
site is 500ing --> http://archive.is/gBd5I
The ability to get your children ahead in life is what gives many parents purpose in life.
Don’t go so far that you take that away.
Don’t go so far that you take that away.
Asking where the money will come from is buying into the way the GOP frames the issue: It assumes there is a shortage of money.
The U.S. is the wealthiest, highest earning country in the history of the world, with no real peer. #2 is the U.S. last year. When the U.S. was much poorer, it provided quality, inexpensive college education. Other countries that are not as wealthy do it. There is no shortage of money.
The U.S. is the wealthiest, highest earning country in the history of the world, with no real peer. #2 is the U.S. last year. When the U.S. was much poorer, it provided quality, inexpensive college education. Other countries that are not as wealthy do it. There is no shortage of money.
I am getting HTTP 500 when I try to open the link. Anyone else also?
In all honesty, I would dislike this author much less if they received a single one-time lump sum of $500K rather than a lifetime stipend of $28k.
As it stands, this entire piece feels like fingernails dragging down a chalkboard screeching “I’m So virtuous and privileged but I announce my privilege so that gives me the right to express my opinions and tell you how to run capitalism better!!!”
There is something about the open-ended lifetime of life support that really turns me off. This is a weak person with low personal responsibility, childlike even. I personally would have declined this offer from my parents, I am not a child, I am an adult. It would insult me to be in this arrangement past the age of 20.
I received around $120K from my parents when I was 23. Through investing, I have turned it into $500K and never spent any of it on myself (vacations, food, rent etc). I paid for all my base needs, including my wedding，out of my salary.
From the time I received the money, I taught myself to be a software engineer and worked my way up from $55K to (now) $350K / year. It was very difficult to do that. I even tried to start several startups, which was a brutal amount of work and worked several jobs at once.
I decided I would not spend the money that was left to me, I felt that would represent a weakness in my personal character to do that. I don’t intend to ever spend it, in fact my plan is to triple it in coming years trading stock options into the coming recession.
Seeing this author go off on tangents about universal basic income and providing free money to struggling artists sets me off. This is someone who has no personal accountability to themselves or to society.
I love art, but it isn’t valued in the marketplace. I wanted money so I learned a valuable skill.
Don’t take free money from your parents as a grown adult and turn around and give us all a lecture on how to structure society!
As it stands, this entire piece feels like fingernails dragging down a chalkboard screeching “I’m So virtuous and privileged but I announce my privilege so that gives me the right to express my opinions and tell you how to run capitalism better!!!”
There is something about the open-ended lifetime of life support that really turns me off. This is a weak person with low personal responsibility, childlike even. I personally would have declined this offer from my parents, I am not a child, I am an adult. It would insult me to be in this arrangement past the age of 20.
I received around $120K from my parents when I was 23. Through investing, I have turned it into $500K and never spent any of it on myself (vacations, food, rent etc). I paid for all my base needs, including my wedding，out of my salary.
From the time I received the money, I taught myself to be a software engineer and worked my way up from $55K to (now) $350K / year. It was very difficult to do that. I even tried to start several startups, which was a brutal amount of work and worked several jobs at once.
I decided I would not spend the money that was left to me, I felt that would represent a weakness in my personal character to do that. I don’t intend to ever spend it, in fact my plan is to triple it in coming years trading stock options into the coming recession.
Seeing this author go off on tangents about universal basic income and providing free money to struggling artists sets me off. This is someone who has no personal accountability to themselves or to society.
I love art, but it isn’t valued in the marketplace. I wanted money so I learned a valuable skill.
Don’t take free money from your parents as a grown adult and turn around and give us all a lecture on how to structure society!
In other words, parasite tries to bite the hand that fed her. Nice.
I come from a more privileged background than I realized and that included better educational opportunities. I was in gifted programs as early as second grade and had several college-equivalent math classes through my high school by the time I graduated high school. I took more math in high school for free than a lot of people with (non STEM) bachelor's degrees take.
As a homemaker in my twenties, I kept running tallies in my head for every single item that went into my shopping cart. I never bothered to carry a calculator. I could run the numbers in my head faster than other people could punch it into a calculator.
So much knowledge and training makes sparse material resources stretch a lot further than people stumbling their way forward with limited finances and less education, fewer solid mental models to inform their decisions, etc.
I mean, I appreciate that she wrote the article and she's not wrong, but I think the issue runs so much deeper than she's indicating. Just because I had smart parents who knew a lot, I had a leg up before I ever started school at age five. And the gulf between me and most of my age mates only grew the older I got.