"Larry" wrote in message
...

"rw" wrote


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



I agree with you rw

Circumstances have lead to me meeting a large number of very wealthy
people,
both people that worked hard and worked smart to make that money and
people
that have never done a thing useful for society in their pampered lives.
As individuals, I've come to highly respect most of the first and despise
most of the latter.

It is my belief that limits should exist on how much can be passed on ...
I
think 'death taxes' are good taxes. Certainly the limit should be high
enough so that a rich man can leave each child enough to live off of for
life .... more than most of us can ever hope to have .... but not many
many
millions, or billions.

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


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.

--riverman