feathers and tying flys with them
 

"riverman" wrote in message ...

"Larry" wrote in message
...

I agree with you. Having money makes it much easier to make more money:
the startup businessman who is putting his nest egg on the line doesn't
stand a chance against the guy who has millions to lose until he gets it
right. Inheritance gives an incredible advantage to the wealthy to get
wealthier, generation after generation, while making it harder for the
lower and middle class person to make wealth. I read a statistic the other
day that said something to the tone of 30 years ago, the discrepancy
between the wealthiest 5% and the lowest 5% i the US was that the top 5%
had 10 times as much money. Now its more like 200 times.

Of course, those aren't the real numbers, but it was staggering how much
more wealth had been amassed in the top few percentage.



http://multinationalmonitor.org/mm20...iewswolff.html

--riverman

feathers and tying flys with them
 

I'm available for adoption. Then again, with my track record, you'll
definately outlive me.
Frank Reid

feathers and tying flys with them
 

"rw" wrote


One of the first times I fished Silver Creek was a morning Trio "hatch."
I'd never fished a trico spinner fall before, but I was prepared and I
lucked out. The spinner fall was immense, and by blind luck I'd placed
myself right upstream of a huge pod of fish. Easily my best day ever on
Silver Creek, so far.


Every fly fisher should get to see one of those pods of chomping trout
someday ( pick a day when I'm not going to be there ;-)


They thought I was a flyfishing god. Little did they know. :-)


those trico falls are a prime example of a time when the right fly and
presentation is critical and the "I always fish a parachute Adams" types go
away muttering to themselves ..... generally, you either catch a ton of
fish, or none ... on spring creeks in a major hatch ( been there, done
both )

feathers and tying flys with them
 

In article . com,
says...
I'm available for adoption. Then again, with my track record, you'll
definately outlive me.


On the other hand, if you're a glass-is-half-full kinda guy, you could
conclude that since nothing has killed you yet, you are probably
immortal.

Kevin

--
reply to: kevin dot vang at minotstateu dot edu

feathers and tying flys with them
 

"Kevin Vang" wrote in message
t...
In article . com,
says...
I'm available for adoption. Then again, with my track record, you'll
definately outlive me.


On the other hand, if you're a glass-is-half-full kinda guy, you could
conclude that since nothing has killed you yet, you are probably
immortal.

Kevin

Well, most of us are. Right up to that last instant....

--riverman

feathers and tying flys with them
 

Jonathan Cook wrote:
Larry wrote:


It is my belief that limits should exist on how much can be passed on


In general I agree, but in practice this becomes difficult
sometimes. I am adamantly opposed to families forced to sell
or break up a family ranch just to pay inheritance or property
taxes.

The notion that the estate tax forces the breakup of family farms is a myth:

According to the IRS, of the 2.3 million people who died in 1998, only
642 left farm assets equal to at least half the total estate. In 2001,
the New York Times reported that the pro-repeal American Farm Bureau
Foundation could not cite a single case of a family farm lost due to the
estate tax.

Many of the wealthiest "farmers" aren’t really farmers at all.
A significant number of the “farmers” who would benefit from estate tax
repeal are actually city-dwellers who own a ranch or horse farm as a
vacation getaway.

from http://www.faireconomy.org/estatetax/ETFarms.html

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

feathers and tying flys with them
 

"rw" wrote in message
k.net...
These people don't live in the same world we do. Something has happened
to this country in the past couple of decades. The distribution of wealth
has become dangerously skewed.

There will always be rich and poor, but I'm afraid we're becoming an
hereditary aristocracy.

NPR related a study/survey that said that the 1% of the U.S. population
has/owns/controls 33% of the wealth, currently. Additionally, the
study/survey suggested that the Bush tax cuts were *likely* responsible.

And:
"Day to Day, March 10, 2006 · The exclusive club of billionaires around the
world jumped to a record 793 over the past year -- and according to Forbes
magazine's 2006 rankings of the world's richest people, their combined
wealth grew to more than $2 trillion. Madeleine Brand talks to Bob Moon of
Marketplace about the good fortune of the world's billionaires."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=5256403

Moreover:

"One percent of the US population owns sixty percent of the stock and forty
percent of the total wealth."
http://www.endgame.org/primer-wealth.html

Op

feathers and tying flys with them
 

Larry wrote:

"rw" wrote


You missed the point. The problem (as I see it, anyway) is *inherited*
wealth.





To answer Tim J's question ... if I were very rich, I'd leave my son enough
that he could live on it for life, or if he had his own spark use it to grow
his own true fortune ... but the vast majority of 'my' money would go to
causes I believe in. One major reason I wouldn't leave my child pampered
way beyond his own efforts ... is, because I love him



in contrast...if i believed my son capable and of good mind and heart
(which i do...well, he's got a heart far superior to mine and a mind
that means to do good), i'd leave him everything i'd been able to
accumulate and that was available for bequest at my death. i'd prefer to
pamper my son beyond his own efforts because i love him and because i'm
skeptical of most good causes i can neither control nor kiss.

feathers and tying flys with them
 

rw wrote:

Jonathan Cook wrote:

Larry wrote:


It is my belief that limits should exist on how much can be passed on



In general I agree, but in practice this becomes difficult sometimes.
I am adamantly opposed to families forced to sell or break up a family
ranch just to pay inheritance or property
taxes.


The notion that the estate tax forces the breakup of family farms is a
myth:

According to the IRS, of the 2.3 million people who died in 1998, only
642 left farm assets equal to at least half the total estate. In 2001,
the New York Times reported that the pro-repeal American Farm Bureau
Foundation could not cite a single case of a family farm lost due to the
estate tax.

Many of the wealthiest "farmers" aren’t really farmers at all.
A significant number of the “farmers” who would benefit from estate tax
repeal are actually city-dwellers who own a ranch or horse farm as a
vacation getaway.

from http://www.faireconomy.org/estatetax/ETFarms.html

in nc, the loss of family farms has nothing to do with the estate tax.
urban development, the meager profit to be made, and the lack of
interest by farmer's children in farming seem to be the things
destroying farms here. nc never had the large number of huge farming
operations i've read about in some other states, but now it seems that
only the huge farms are surviving.

feathers and tying flys with them
 

Jeff Miller wrote:
rw wrote:

The notion that the estate tax forces the breakup of family farms is a
myth:

According to the IRS, of the 2.3 million people who died in 1998, only
642 left farm assets equal to at least half the total estate. In 2001,
the New York Times reported that the pro-repeal American Farm Bureau
Foundation could not cite a single case of a family farm lost due to
the estate tax.

Many of the wealthiest "farmers" aren’t really farmers at all.
A significant number of the “farmers” who would benefit from estate
tax repeal are actually city-dwellers who own a ranch or horse farm as
a vacation getaway.

from http://www.faireconomy.org/estatetax/ETFarms.html

in nc, the loss of family farms has nothing to do with the estate tax.
urban development, the meager profit to be made, and the lack of
interest by farmer's children in farming seem to be the things
destroying farms here. nc never had the large number of huge farming
operations i've read about in some other states, but now it seems that
only the huge farms are surviving.

It's pretty much the same with the ranchers I know in Idaho. The land
gets passed down through generations, with more and more complicated and
competing interests. Some of the descendants want to continue ranching,
but more often than not they don't. They want to cash out.

Profitable farming and ranching is now big business. The "family farm"
is a myth.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.