How should most people become wealthy?

[bankside]

i.e. safe, secure, well-fed, can ride through a patch of bad health with proper care and no worries about livelihood, able to buy things not just out of necessity but for pleasure, able to save, and grow savings or investments or accumulate real property...

Like this? No connotation of comparison, except against an absolute threshold of struggle, and no limit on the number of people "allowed" to live that way.

Not living paycheque to paycheque. Safe, low-crime neighbourhood. Health care not economically burdensome. Able to buy above and beyond the bare necessities of life. Able to see standard of living improve over time.

Home+Health+Consumerism...

 

[xbuzzerx]

Like this? No connotation of comparison, except against an absolute threshold of struggle, and no limit on the number of people "allowed" to live that way.

Not living paycheque to paycheque. Safe, low-crime neighbourhood. Health care not economically burdensome. Able to buy above and beyond the bare necessities of life. Able to see standard of living improve over time.

Home+Health+Consumerism...

But "able to save" can mean $100 a month towards a vacation every other summer or a new car every 5 or so years, or it can mean expanding a stock portfolio annually or picking up rental properties or additional real estate every decade or so and vacation every year as a "not really even flinch" expense.

It's kind of a big swing, at least in the U.S. I would consider the former as typical of middle class, and the latter as more restricted to the top of middle class and above. How "wealthy" are you aiming?

 

[luckynumbah7]

"More programs" doesn't quite sound like "wealth" though. Plus, help me with the math: I spend my inheritance buying furniture, and building an addition to my house, and going to a concert. Manufacturers, retailers, construction workers, musicians, and ticket agents all work.

Or, the government spends my inheritance building schools, ploughing roads, repairing sidewalks.... Teachers, construction workers, equipment drivers all work.

Why is one better than the other? Don't both scenarios create jobs?

- - - Updated - - -

First, I never said one was better than the other. They're both useful. However, what's commonly considered wealth in the usa as depicted in the media is either inherited or 'new money'- and the former tend to live off interest and use ridiculous tax breaks which doesn't create much of anything. That's how they stay wealthy, living off interest. The people who tend to spend money that create such jobs are the 'new money' that long-term wealthy people sneer at.

And programs help create wealth by giving people the knowledge, safety, security and ability to both live and work in the nice neighborhoods and such that you gave as an example of wealth, which I consider not so much wealth as the term is generally used but instead a median which everyone can live by. Basic necessities shouldn't be considered wealth.

When people don't panic and have large amounts of anger, grief and depression over how they're going to eat and other such necessities crime drops, kids tend to stay in school, ect ect.

 

[bankside]

But "able to save" can mean $100 a month towards a vacation every other summer or a new car every 5 or so years, or it can mean expanding a stock portfolio annually or picking up rental properties or additional real estate every decade or so and vacation every year as a "not really even flinch" expense.

It's kind of a big swing, at least in the U.S. I would consider the former as typical of middle class, and the latter as more restricted to the top of middle class and above. How "wealthy" are you aiming?

I guess I'm asking against a backdrop where it seems more and more people complain that any of those things are slipping out of reach, and I'm curious about how the economy should at least get everyone moving in the right direction. So I'm back to a relativistic criteria.

So if you save for a new mercedes e-class every 5 years, compared to a low-end econo-car that you MUST have for work, then you're doing it right. Or rather the economy is. But if you spend the money on foreign travel, that's okay too. There's a wide range of what can be considered wealthy, I'm trying to be deliberately broad about it as long as the criteria of "getting ahead" is in there.

Just scraping by, or treading water, or slipping back isn't it.

 

[bankside]

When people don't panic and have large amounts of anger, grief and depression over how they're going to eat and other such necessities crime drops, kids tend to stay in school, ect ect.

Okay I think my scenario assumes we don't want anyone living that way any more. But do you see the dilemma? If I spend my inheritance on season tickets to the symphony, the families of several musicians will not panic or have anger, grief or depression over how they're going to make ends meet. If the government takes all that money in inheritance tax and spends it on roads instead, then what happens? Isn't that just shifting the grief and uncertainty around?

 

[luckynumbah7]

Okay I think my scenario assumes we don't want anyone living that way any more. But do you see the dilemma? If I spend my inheritance on season tickets to the symphony, the families of several musicians will not panic or have anger, grief or depression over how they're going to make ends meet. If the government takes all that money in inheritance tax and spends it on roads instead, then what happens? Isn't that just shifting the grief and uncertainty around?

What makes you think a son who inherited millions spending something on season tickets creates the same amount of jobs as, say, state gov. creating jobs a la Roosevelt's New Deal? One person doling out money depending on his wants isn't nearly as effective a job creator as, say, hiring several companies to actually remodel buildings so they're ada compliant, in spirit instead of just word.

 

[xbuzzerx]

I guess I'm asking against a backdrop where it seems more and more people complain that any of those things are slipping out of reach, and I'm curious about how the economy should at least get everyone moving in the right direction. So I'm back to a relativistic criteria.

So if you save for a new mercedes e-class every 5 years, compared to a low-end econo-car that you MUST have for work, then you're doing it right. Or rather the economy is. But if you spend the money on foreign travel, that's okay too. There's a wide range of what can be considered wealthy, but scraping by isn't it.

I actually think in the U.S., it would be relatively simple. Our reactionist right likes to posture as though "every possible thing has been done to make an equitable and fair society, and going any further will simply collapse everyone." Yet we have ample evidence from around the first world that this simply isn't true, and certainly not of the wealthiest nation on earth. Our income inequality is enormous.

Force the full-time working wage minimums up substantially, not on a "maybe every 5 years laws actually force it to catch up with inflation, because workers have no power to drive it up whatsoever in the marketplace" basis. Take a hard look at the ways that wealth is funnelled around while evading taxation-- trusts and estate inheritance laws for individuals, the splitting of assets and liabilities into LLC's for corporate entities which are, in effect, only one financial interest which split up only for the purposes of spreading money around in such a way that no entity appears to make taxable income. Reagan tax code restructure. Use that additional income (which the rich now regard as an entitlement to keep) for public healthcare & education (including collegiate level education.) Adopt first world standards on things like required paid vacation time and required paid maternity leave for all workers, with a graduated system proportional to time worked for part time workers so that you cannot evade it by simply hiring your entire workforce at 39 hours.

A small loophole-- take a look at salaried positions. More and more people are being offered "salary" essentially to demand they work 1.5 jobs (or more) in terms of hours and services in their current position, without being paid properly. Or simply so that employers are not accountable at all for how much they demand of workers. Many Americans feel they cannot take even unpaid vacation time because their job demands they do so much work and taking the time off would jeopardize any chance of promotion, and possibly even their job. Others routinely cash in even paid vacation that is offered with current jobs because they need the money and taking the time off is "understood" to not really be allowed.

That would get everyone on a "not unjustifiably struggling while working full time jobs" basis, easily.

 

[star-warrior]

Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity.

Inheritance should be limited to monetary transfers initiated while the benefactor is yet alive. Hoarded assets that remain undistributed at the time of a person’s death should revert to the State.

Hong Kong abolished it's estate duty in 2006. I think other countries should follow suit. You work hard for a living, and should be able to pass on all your posessions without state getting a slice.

 

[xbuzzerx]

You work hard for a living, and should be able to pass on all your posessions without state getting a slice.

Why? 10char

 

[hotatlboi]

Wages?
Investments?

These two are the keys to wealth for the vast majority.

Luck or inheritance can do it for some but not all.

The principles of wealth are relatively simple but most people do not follow them.

What do most of us do when we get an extra $100 or $200 a month. We usually tell ourselves something like, oh now I can afford those new clothes I've been wanting, or that new TV, or I can afford to go out more with my friends, or some other thing.

To build wealth, you have to forgo the conveniences of the moment and instead spend your current income on assets that will generate you more income or capital appreciation in the future. Most people do not have the discipline to do that and they blow it on stuff that has virtually no value and depreciates to nothing very fast.

Wealth is built by compounding. If you've taken a percentage of your current income and purchased something that is going to generate you additional income or appreciate in value, that is the first step. But then, when you start to see a return on that investment, you have to reinvest the profits. The compounding that generates is what builds wealth.

This is of course the key to long term wealth for all. There is no successful strategy for short term wealth for all. That is known as a get rich quick scheme, and economic theory states that all such schemes will fail after the first few people have taken advantage of whatever opening there is.

 

[Cormac135]

I was only six numbers away from it tonight.

 

[kallipolis]

I have never given a thought to becoming wealthy except maintaining my good health, and having sufficient money to pay my bills, clothe myself, and cover other daily expenses that reward me with a measure of happiness...In this sense I am wealthy....having entered this life with nothing, I shall leave it with nothing...except to reward those who I have loved, with the few possessions that I count part of my wealth.

I have noticed over the years that wealthy people are often insecure, fearful of losing their "assets" and of having to return to socializing with those whose fortunes are not invested in a Mercedes, or a variety of houses....for their investments have been made in people who reward them with a happy, and fulfilling life...

 

[palemale]

I don't love La Rowling. I've seen her on television lamenting the so-called destitute state she was in after her divorce. She showed the viewers around an appartment that was better than many a Briton had available to them.

That doesn't necessarily mean she wasn't suffering severe financial problems. I don't know how the rent laws are in Britain, but it is not uncommon in New York City for low income people, especially retired people, living in pretty big apartments because of our rent control and rent stabilization laws. Without these laws, hundreds of thousands of people would lose their apartments if these laws disappeared and landlords could charge market rates. I once lived in a decent apartment in a neighborhood that was increasingly well-to-do. My rent was probably 25% of market rate. During a period of unemployment, nearly all my income paid the rent, and the utilities had to wait to be paid until 24 hours before the threatened cut-off date.

In the absence of NYC rent laws and state unemployment payments, I would have been in the street. Perhaps Britain's laws spared J. K. Rowling that fate.

 

[palemale]

Communism really does not work. And, yes, yours is a prescription for all businesses and farms to eventually fall into state ownership. A man builds a business and dies young, and it is gone. Or he gives it to his son who dies young, and it is lost while the father lives.
Worse, it destroys much of the incentive to invent and build. Why work when you can live on welfare? Why work, save, invent, build or invest only to have the liberals confiscate it.
You evil notion is based on the false stereotype that wealthy people are hoarding, when, in fact, the money is invested and working in one way or another, and creating jobs.
Ours has been the greatest, most inventive economy in the history iof the world with unparalleled advances in technology, electronics, medicine, science ets. But you liberals are so eaten up with envy, that you want to destroy it. And, yes, you are rapidly succeeding. You will die in a much poorer country with much less freedom.

Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men for the nastiest of reasons will somehow work for the benefit of us all.

John Maynard Keynes

 

[Benvolio]

John Maynard Keynes

People want to better themselves and their families and will work hard and make sacrifices to do so. Capitalism harnesses that drive for self interest for the ultimate benefit of all. It has raised the bulk of humanity from one room hovels, poor clothing, poor food, no medicine to the prosperity which people in industrialized countries enjoy. Even the poorest countries benefit to a degree.
Socialism/liberalism /communism pretend that people are altruistic, willing to work with the benefit going to each according to his need. Alas,it is not so.

 

[xbuzzerx]

People want to better themselves and their families and will work hard and make sacrifices to do so. Capitalism harnesses that drive for self interest for the ultimate benefit of all.

And when working hard and making sacrifices merely keeps you where you were 10 years ago, and 20 years ago?

The capitalism we have today does not produce the result you are parrotting that capitalism has.

 

[sixthson]

Why? 10char

Maybe because it's theirs to do with as they please? Should the state also take the family home, car and dog?

 

[xbuzzerx]

Maybe because it's theirs to do with as they please? Should the state also take the family home, car and dog?

I don't disagree that what you buy with your money you earn when you are alive is yours.

What I disagree with is any kind of immutable right for others to inherit any sum or amount of wealth for which they did no more work than being born, tax-free. I don't regard that as an entitlement. I view coming into 5 million dollars because someone keeled over as no different than coming into it off a lottery ticket or getting lucky in the casino. Especially if this unfettered process results in progressively more concentrated and more entrenched wealth and income inequality for the society overall.

Would you defend this idea of inherited wealth all the way right back to a feudalism or kingship (in all but name) by a miniscule elite class which, effectively, owns everything?

 

[sixthson]

Should every dime go to the state after your death? Or will there be an acceptable amount to pass on to heirs? Would you feel the same if you were an heir?

 

[xbuzzerx]

Should every dime go to the state after your death? Or will there be an acceptable amount to pass on to heirs? Would you feel the same if you were an heir?

I don't know how or why people ever manage to convince themselves that estate taxes, which most people do not even have enough assets to be effected by, "takes everything away from you when you die." Or comes anywhere close, or ever has, or ever will.

Estate taxes far more closely resemble "you pass on 5 houses, fully paid for, to your heir, and he sells one to cover the taxes and other expenses on the other four." He still got four houses for free, through not a shred of effort on his own. And everyday Americans are constantly asked everytime this issue comes up to feel sorry for that guy who inherited four houses. I'd take one.