feathers and tying flys with them

Wayne Harrison wrote:

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


like everything else, this situation is as it has always been in a
seriously capitalistic society: relative. that is, compared to millions of
folks in this country, your own economic condition, as you stood chatting in
silver creek with those pilots, is just as far fetched to them as that of
the pilot's boss's is to you.

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

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

"rw" wrote in message
.net...
Wayne Harrison wrote:

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


like everything else, this situation is as it has always been in a
seriously capitalistic society: relative. that is, compared to millions
of folks in this country, your own economic condition, as you stood
chatting in silver creek with those pilots, is just as far fetched to
them as that of the pilot's boss's is to you.

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


Thus demonstrating that once again you've missed the point. The problem is
disparity.

Wolfgang

rw typed:
Wayne Harrison wrote:

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


like everything else, this situation is as it has always been in
a seriously capitalistic society: relative. that is, compared to
millions of folks in this country, your own economic condition, as
you stood chatting in silver creek with those pilots, is just as far
fetched to them as that of the pilot's boss's is to you.

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

As your contribution to society, you're leaving nothing to your kids, right?
--
TL,
Tim
-------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

On Wed, 5 Apr 2006 08:52:20 -0400, "Tim J."
wrote:

As your contribution to society, you're leaving nothing to your kids, right?
--

Fly rods. I'm leavin' 'em fly rods. Lotsnlots of fly rods. And a
fast car or two.....

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

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

"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

Tim J. wrote:
rw typed:

Wayne Harrison wrote:


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


like everything else, this situation is as it has always been in
a seriously capitalistic society: relative. that is, compared to
millions of folks in this country, your own economic condition, as
you stood chatting in silver creek with those pilots, is just as far
fetched to them as that of the pilot's boss's is to you.

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


As your contribution to society, you're leaving nothing to your kids, right?

I'm leaving them something, but not millions, let alone billions.

"The essence of the American experiment is our collective rejection of
European hereditary aristocracy and grotesque inequalities of wealth.
When Alexis de Tocqueville visited the United States in the
mid-nineteenth century, he noted that equality of condition permeated
the American spirit: 'The American experiment presupposes a rejection of
inherited privilege.' In the words of novelist John Dos Passos,
'rejection of Europe is what America is all about.'

"The nation's founders and populace viewed excessive concentrations of
wealth as incompatible with the ideals of the new nation. Revolutionary
era visitors to Europe, including Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Ben
Franklin, were aghast at the wide disparities of wealth and poverty they
observed. They surmised that these great European inequalities were the
result of an aristocratic system of land transfers, hereditary political
power, and monopoly."

from:
Wealth And Our Commonwealth
by William H. Gates and Chuck Collins
Why America Should Tax Accumulated Fortunes
http://www.thinkingpeace.com/Lib/lib017.html



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

"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

"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