111–120 of 120 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Then, you’re obligated to take care of them No, you very much are not.
Most of us are thankful our parents took care of us and do love them. I recognize that it’s not everyone but I think most kids don’t want to see their parents suffer.
I’d love to see a source for that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bold assessment.
It’s not. If you have older parents today, you can do the math on what activities they’re doing and quickly determine that you’re never going to see a cent from them. My friends all report the same. I may sound salty but I’m not. I’ve spent enough time on Reddit to know that the real nightmare is when your parents didn’t save anything and can’t still work. Then, you’re obligated to take care of them and they actively…
Please tell me you see the irony in this.
While the article doesn't talk much about it, but the math in it implies that most of the wealth will be transferred to the government in the form of inheritance taxes. So yes, the great wealth transfer. Just not in the direction everyone presumed.
Sounds pretty fair to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a parent I would far rather suffer than see my kids suffer.
As a child of parents who think like this, I refuse to let them.
So my kids should suffer more than me, and I should suffer more than my parents?
Heh, I saw the title and the domain, and I thought it was referring to wealth transferred from poor to rich by all the credit card fees that merchants pay that are refunded to well-off cardholders through rebates. Poorer customers do not get lucrative rebates, it they use debit and get none at all.
While the article doesn't talk much about it, but the math in it implies that most of the wealth will be transferred to the government in the form of inheritance taxes. So yes, the great wealth transfer. Just not in the direction everyone presumed.
Inheritance tax in the US currently doesn't kick in unless the estate is worth more than 12 million dollars. Sounds pretty fair to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you make $2000 and your rent is $1800 are you food insecure or rent insecure? This is a miscategorization imo, food is incredibly cheap compared to any American income or welfare program.
My comment didn’t really portray what I’m getting at. Food insecurity is obviously an indicator for financial confidence. I know people can afford food, on top of the fact they will choose to pay for it because they have to. I know people who have chosen to eat and fall behind on rent. The point is, if you’re worried about your meals, you’re not living the rest of your life with confidence. It’s not something to be b…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree about drywall versus plaster, save for ease of repair. Maybe it's just in most cases you won't encounter the highest quality drywall, nor will the installation be well done and actually last even if, in theory, it could be done well. E.g., my 100+ year plaster is still there and totally fine save in high-moisture rooms, whereas my friend's 20-year-old house has screws or nails starting to pop out of the dr…
> whereas my friend's 20-year-old house has screws or nails starting to pop out of the drywall everywhere. This is a drywall installation issue, though, like you said. Lath and plaster can have the same exact issue with popping. And unlike drywall, lath and plaster has issues with cracking especially if done poorly. Regarding acoustics, you can easily improve acoustic performance of drywall in many ways. Double layer…
There's a principle-agent problem here. It is hard for a home buyer to verify claims of the existence of the things you list whereas lath and plaster is easy for a non-professional to learn to recognize. Lath and plaster also is better at forming curved surfaces. (I'm a particular fan of coved ceilings.)
>baby boomers are sitting on at least $93 trillion in assets > $36 trillion in baby boomer wealth will pass to Gen X and millennial heirs over the next 20 years after subtracting liabilities, excluding the top 1 percent of households (the outliers in how they spend their wealth) Why the fuck would you be allowed to include top 1% in first number but not second? They are outliers, yes, so what?
This is an article about how the 99% will spend all their money and their children will not inherit money. The 1% will not spend all their money. They are not who the article is about.