|
To
make 100% sure that this statement was true, I
asked a friend who works in finance. Here is his
answer:
[My real name],
What I can tell you is it's a very
political question,
because money is
connected to time. It is a different thing to have a
million bucks
in your checking account to fuck around with at age 25 than it is to
have
assets and savings totaling a million bucks at age 65 or
75.
Conservatives like to subvert the
conventional consensus of what
"rich" is, by playing with time.
Conservatives accurately but
misleadingly point out
that about
90% of people who "become millionaires" do so
through gradual accrual of assets — they "earn
it” — whereas only about
10% are given a million bucks by mom or dad, or inherit a business
worth that
much, or something. However, that 90% that "earns it" is
usually very, very old by the time they do, and have not been "living
like
a millionaire" in the interim, but instead, saving
and paying
down a mortgage. Like, I bet that [our
mutual friend who is a doctor]
and [our
mutual friend who is a lawyer]
will retire millionaires easy,
though they won't "live like millionaires" in the interim. It
is not so hard if you're in a field where you can make 6 figures, and
you
aren't profligate and irresponsible.
But, even factoring in rock stars and
NBA players, the VAST MAJORITY of
people
who are rich WHILE THEY ARE YOUNG are Paris Hiltons
who have it given
to them.
Conservatives also like to use the
million-dollar mark because there is
a lot
of wealth-transferring from rich parents just below that
mark. I saw
a statistic the other day that 40% of adults over 65 still support
their grown
children financially in some way.
The other thing I can tell you, working
at [where
he works], is that there are
a
shitload
of legal loopholes allowing people to subvert taxes when transferring
wealth to
children. For all of the conservatives' bitching about the
estate tax,
there are LOTS of ways around that shit.
--[his name]
|
|