Be Patriotic. Spend down your assets you hoarders...

[CardsFan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobbieB I did my part, I retired. Now some recently graduated engineer has his new start in life. He can work for his dough like I did -

+1.

I feel I got out of the way, while still useful. The young un's need room to grow, and I had served my time.

Based on some of the feedback I got at the time, there were several who felt I had helped and mentored them. I wished them all well, and maybe I'll see some of them at a future retiree lunch.

That said, It is NOT my job to spend money to help the economy. It is MY job to make sure DW and I have a comfortable retirement, and are not a burden on society. If we leave some money on the table, DS has a head start.

[RobbieB]

I never spend dough to help the economy, I spend it to have fun and support people I care about. Helping the economy just happens.

[Blueskies123]

Another option would be increase donations to good charities to bump up spending.

[Ted_Shepherd]

The author of the Bloomberg article says that inheritances contribute to inequality in the economy. That is simply mistaken. Inheritances almost always proceed from a richer "decedent" to some one or more persons who are less wealthy than the dear departed. This is even more obviously true when the estate is split among multiple heirs. Thus it is mathematically necessary that inheritances have a strong tendency to REDUCE inequality in the economy. That would still be so if the death tax dies. The author's unexpressed beef, probably, is that the "wrong" people are inheriting assets.

[audreyh1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted_Shepherd The author of the Bloomberg article says that inheritances contribute to inequality in the economy. That is simply mistaken. Inheritances almost always proceed from a richer "decedent" to some one or more persons who are less wealthy than the dear departed. This is even more obviously true when the estate is split among multiple heirs. Thus it is mathematically necessary that inheritances have a strong tendency to REDUCE inequality in the economy. That would still be so if the death tax dies. The author's unexpressed beef, probably, is that the "wrong" people are inheriting assets.

Thanks for pointing that out. I also noticed this issue. Inheritances are also likely to transfer money from a hoarder to someone (or several someones) much more inclined to spend, IMO.

[JDARNELL]

Savings is really just deferred spending. At some point it will be spent by someone in the future. Perhaps my kids or their kids who knows. Most of us make decisions on the margins if the value is there.

Not a lot of things that I am really interested in purchasing at this point in my life. I will spend some money getting the McMansion ready to sell in 18 months but we are downsizing transferring wealth thru paying for kids college. We will also upgrade vehicles in the future but not at this time as insurance with two boys is a killer. Future travel will be a combination of domestic and international so what we do spend will be spread around however with a smaller home base my monthly marginal spending will only got up so much.

Having "stuff" stresses me out. As I get more seasoned in years I want simplification and I suspect with simplification I will naturally spend less. Not planning on it really but I think that is the way it will go. If I could go back in time I would have hung it up before I did at 45. I overshot the target. First world problem.

[Music Lover]

Quote:

Originally Posted by LARS Agree 100%. Have a contractor that does excellent work and is reliable, but I pay a premium. And you know what... money very, very well spent.

I'm proud of my DIY skills, but sometimes just can't be bothered to take on some jobs. The BIL of a good friend is a reliable and competent handyman and I now sometimes just pay him to do the job...or the part of the job I don't want to do. This is a change from years ago when I would have never considered paying someone to do a job that I was perfectly capable of doing myself.

[Ted_Shepherd]

Be patriotic; in your retirement keep your assets working as the capital that supports worker productivity. People sacrificed current spending and consumer gratification to provide the capital that made your work and mine productive. My employers had huge investments in capital for plants and equipment. Yours probably did too. We can return the favor to new generations of workers. Money has value other than immediate spending. In advocating balance between spending and investing, I'm probably on safe ground. I have never before had so much disposable income. I'm not spending anywhere near as much as I could. That's because I see few things that are worth their currently inflated prices. That doesn't make me a hoarder; it makes me (a small scale) benefactor to working people. That help takes the form of employment (to sustain self-respect) rather than handouts that humiliate.

[meierlde]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted_Shepherd The author of the Bloomberg article says that inheritances contribute to inequality in the economy. That is simply mistaken. Inheritances almost always proceed from a richer "decedent" to some one or more persons who are less wealthy than the dear departed. This is even more obviously true when the estate is split among multiple heirs. Thus it is mathematically necessary that inheritances have a strong tendency to REDUCE inequality in the economy. That would still be so if the death tax dies. The author's unexpressed beef, probably, is that the "wrong" people are inheriting assets.

Which is why in the past when land was the main asset often primogeniture applied by keeping all the land to the oldest son and providing small sums for other children. (Indeed John D Rockefeller senior had 1 son who inherited almost everything, and gave his daughters annuities to live on.

[Sunset]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan Beginning this year we are increasing our spending by proxy in that we will start giving our 2 kids (in their mid to late 30's) the max we can each year without it needing to be reported. ($14k per person, so $28k each). There are no grandchildren and none expected so we decided we'd rather begin giving the kids their inheritance slowly over time rather than a big lump sum in possibly another 30 years time when we die.

It was not clear, but since you are clever, I'm thinking you are saying $28K per child since each of you can gift $14K.

[Sunset]

Well, we really screwed up.. we spent $10K on a river cruise in Europe

Wonder if I can deduct from taxes, since it didn't benefit folks in USA

[Fedup]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sunset It was not clear, but since you are clever, I'm thinking you are saying $28K per child since each of you can gift $14K.

It's clear to me and I'm not clever. Each parent can donate $14k per child.

[Mdlerth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted_Shepherd The author of the Bloomberg article says that inheritances contribute to inequality in the economy. That is simply mistaken. Inheritances almost always proceed from a richer "decedent" to some one or more persons who are less wealthy than the dear departed. This is even more obviously true when the estate is split among multiple heirs. Thus it is mathematically necessary that inheritances have a strong tendency to REDUCE inequality in the economy. That would still be so if the death tax dies. The author's unexpressed beef, probably, is that the "wrong" people are inheriting assets.

+1 (To Ted's comments, not to the article)

Inequality, schminequality. Johann Strauss, Archie Manning and Christie Brinkley got to bequeath to their children musical talent, athleticism, good looks. I can't pass on any such genes. All I can give to my kids is a few bucks and some nuggets of wisdom (which they'll probably ignore). Why single out $$ as the metric of unfairness?

[Alan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sunset It was not clear, but since you are clever, I'm thinking you are saying $28K per child since each of you can gift $14K.

Exactly