feathers and tying flys with them

Mr. Opus McDopus wrote:
"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 aroundthe
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

http://www.osjspm.org/101_wealth.htm

Very interesting. Did you know that Bill Gates alone has wealth more
than the bottom 40% of all US households? And that the top 1% have more
wealth than the bottom 90%.

Or that the wealth in the US is more concentrated than any other
developed nation.

--riverman
(in the wrong business. I should be in the Inheritance business...)

On Thu, 06 Apr 2006 03:58:44 GMT, rw wrote:

The "family farm"
is a myth.

A profitable family farm certainly is. My wife grew up on a "family farm" and I
knew a lot of other small farmers when I was in Kansas - they all had full time
jobs in addition to farming. Estate taxes were the least of their worries.
--
Charlie...
http://www.chocphoto.com

"Jonathan Cook" wrote in message
...
[most posts don't show up local for me, so I'm following up
on my own to chime in again.]

I agree with much of what others are saying, just not that
nobody is affected. And I think property taxes are the worse
evil.

Two anecdotes:

One of my sibling's in-law's family owns some beautiful land
that a nice NE Ohio river forms part of the boundary for. The
county has been after them to sell some so they can add it to
their park system. It's been family land for a long time, they
are simple country folk, but the county has been pushing up
valuation on it and they are at the point of not being able to
afford property taxes anymore. That's just wrong, in my book.

I looked at Op's post and www.endgame.org. Interesting site. I
agree with alot there, but well, everyone has an agenda. In
their "top 100" landholders list, many of the entries are
"families". Well I know (quite well, we just visited them last
month in TX) some of one of the top-50 families, and while yes
they are sitting on a reasonable value in terms of their share
of the family land, they're scraping by day-to-day just like
the rest of us. Their house in Austin is probably 1/2 the value
of my house here, their children are working in semi-blue
collar jobs (vet assistant, dog kennel manager, married to a
border patrol agent), and no one that I've met is living a
"rich" life. Not exactly the life one would expect if they found
themselves on the top-50 landowner list. I'm not saying we should
weep for them; if the family cooperation collapsed and everyone
sold off, yes they'd get a good windfall, but all they're interested
in is keeping the ranch in the family, and keeping it in the black
in most years.

Jon.

I know (quite well, I just visited one who sits at the desk next to mine a
couple of minutes ago) some people in the bottom 50,000,000 or so land
owners in the U.S. She and her husband own about a third of an acre in
Milwaukee. They both work full time in semi-sorta-technical jobs. She says
the story of your friends' plight breaks her heart and asks would they like
to borrow a hundred bucks.

Wolfgang

"Jeff Miller" wrote in

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.

Jeff,

I admit that sounds great. My son has a far better heart and mind than my
own ( not a big accomplishment, but he really is a damn fine young man ) and
it is easy to be skeptical of most good causes.

And I'll add that my experiences may be the exceptions ... before I cite
them.

It's been my observation that the further from the original source the money
gets as it is inherited and inherited the less likely the hearts and minds
are to be 'good'

I don't know you, maybe you are a billionaire that has succeeded in raising
a very pampered but still socially responsible child. But in my case, my
kid is such a damn fine specimen in large part because he was not that
pampered and he was taught that he would have what he could earn and he was
taught to be very grateful for what he had and to realize it could all slip
away with a slight change in luck and that a major difference between him
and his cushy middle class life and others barely surviving was his luck,
not his superiority or their inferiority.

My kid would handle a fortune well, and do good with it. BUT his kids would
also be raised differently even if he tried to do his best. There is a good
chance that they would start to feel that superiority I've seen in so many
rich brats ... a air of superiority that can only come from never, ever,
having to actually prove oneself to maintain one's place on the top of the
heap. And my great grandkids, the third generation wealthy without
effort would be damn UNlikely to echo my son's high standards of self
discipline ....and the cycle would spiral down etc etc.

They say power corrupts ... nearly without exception .... and my experience
is that inherited money and it's power corrupt far more thoroughly than
worked for money and power.

So, back to where I was, I'd provide well for my kid, but not well enough to
start a cycle of inherited corruption ... the rest would get 'spread around'
.... too much concentration, in any one place is a bad thing ... that is, I
believe, rw's point that I agreed with.

Charlie Choc wrote:

On Thu, 06 Apr 2006 03:58:44 GMT, rw wrote:


The "family farm"
is a myth.


A profitable family farm certainly is. My wife grew up on a "family farm" and I
knew a lot of other small farmers when I was in Kansas - they all had full time
jobs in addition to farming. Estate taxes were the least of their worries.

um, speaking of kansas...the chief castrator in the waynesville s/m
dungeon neuticle drama is from kansas... apparently he was employed for
23 years in some hospital out there.

"Scott Seidman" wrote in message
. 1.4...

So, you found a use for the trailing edge of the primaries, two of which
should give him nearly a lifetime supply of biots.

Now, what does he do with the rest of the goose?
--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

Not that its important to the discussion, but I believe that biots are on
the leading edge.

Bob Weinberger

On Thu, 06 Apr 2006 20:40:26 -0400, Jeff Miller
wrote:

um, speaking of kansas...the chief castrator in the waynesville s/m
dungeon neuticle drama is from kansas... apparently he was employed for
23 years in some hospital out there.

I haven't read about that (other than here), but that must mean the place is
covered by medical insurance and has lousy food. g
--
Charlie...
http://www.chocphoto.com