ERICOPOLY

Here is an example of a "dynastic" amount of wealth if fully paid off: http://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/15582795_zpid/1_pnd/37.525656,-121.976223,37.392391,-122.2756_rect/11_zm/1_fr/?view=map It's a friggin' house on 0.38 acres. Where are the butlers and ascots? Or here's one for $7m on a quarter of an acre: http://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/19496160_zpid/1_pnd/37.446056,-122.114818,37.429393,-122.15224_rect/14_zm/1_fr/?view=map I grew up in Los Altos Hills in a house that was purchased for $52k in 1970 and Zillow claims is now worth a bit over $4m. Should you be worried that if it climbs another 25% it will become a seed for a family dynasty? That's a "seed" for a dynasty, not yet a dynasty. Put Roundup on the seed to kill it because there is a chance it could be a dynasty after decades of further cultivation by the heirs, who normally spend it anyhow? Could your neighbor have a dynasty? What if the guy at work had a secret dynasty? Communities can organize and form watches to look out for potential dynasties. Beware, the guy who moved in down the street could be harboring plans to have a dynasty. The pastor could be one of them too. Maybe that nice guy... oh wait, but what if he is one of these dirty dynasty types too? Oh, you really have to watch out these days... these dynasties could be anywhere.

I have yet to see an article on estate taxes that doesn't list the DuPonts or the Waltons or the Kochs or some other very extremely large fortune as a reason why we need the tax. Notice these articles don't obsess upon fortunes that are only $5m in size. The author doesn't want to be laughed at perhaps? Yet that's the size of "fortune" where the tax kicks in. What "great crimes" lie behind the $7m fortunes? Hmm? Why are not the families with $17 million being vilified by these articles? We must crack down hard on those with $6m, right? For the country would be ruined if their 6 grandchildren each inherited $1m? It's absurd and you know it -- which is why the articles only talk about the billion dollar fortunes. "Man of 35 years (and his 3 siblings) each inherits $1.25m while avoiding the estate tax -- enough to buy a condo in Santa Barbara. We must raise taxes to prevent this sort of dynastic wealth transfer." The estate tax hitting $6m "fortunes" isn't about stopping dynasties -- it's about taking money. You must be kidding if $6m is a dynasty. In Los Altos Hills, it's called "mom and dad's house that they paid $50k for in 1970".

Was there dynastic wealth before the gift and estate taxes were created? Or did they solve a problem that only exists in the imagination? http://www.forbes.com/sites/phildemuth/2014/07/07/the-family-is-a-machine-for-destroying-wealth/ Ah an article from Forbes magazine about no dynastic wealth. Wasn't the magazine started by the current Forbes' grandfather about 100 years ago. I believe the word you are reaching for is "nepotism". Forbes works for his money. Was he fairly chosen for the job out of a pool of thousands of candidates? Probably not. http://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-businessmen/ceos/steve-forbes-net-worth-2/ Forbes inherited the Forbes magazine is all. And speaking of Forbes and articles on Forbes. http://www.forbes.com/sites/kerryadolan/2015/07/01/billion-dollar-bloodlines-americas-richest-families-2015/ http://www.alternet.org/corporate-accountability-and-workplace/wealth-america-getting-increasingly-dynastic-we-should-be Edited to add one more article http://www.forbes.com/sites/katiasavchuk/2015/07/01/americas-oldest-billion-dollar-family-fortunes/2/ Your alternet article claims that a great crime lies behind every great fortune. Why don't you tell that to Gates and Buffett instead of sharing it with us? That sounds like well-researched information to me. Oh yes, it gives examples of some families that have remained rich like the DuPonts. Does it explain what harm that has brought upon us? Instead, the article lists (Koch brothers) a crime from getting rich on fossil fuels -- but that's without inherited wealth. Hmm.... And a complaint that Steinbrenner made a lot of money in baseball -- oh, can't we just confiscate it because it was "absurd"? So the crime is being really wealthy, because a great crime lies behind each fortune. Ahh.... lock up the really wealthy people because they are criminals. That's a really great article, thanks for sharing.

See, if I spend less (due to taxes coming out of my budget) then the people who provide me with goods/services will have less income. So how much of that income will actually make it back to them after going through the government? Do my taxes put a damper on my spending, their income, or both? Is it my money that's being redistributed, or their "would be" income that is being redistributed? It confuses me. Above a certain level of after-tax income, any excess income will just get saved and not spent. But there is a middle-ground there where most people exist -- raise their taxes and they'll spend less, which directly results in less income for the people who serve their needs.

The government (ostensibly) is wanting to raise taxes to redistribute it to help the less fortunate. Spending your money is by definition spreading it around to people who are willing to work for it (providing you with goods or services in return). A consumption tax: does it encourage or discourage this? Let's say I get taxed 20% on what I spend. Living within a budget, this means that LESS of my money is distributed DIRECTLY to the people who work for it (perhaps I take fewer vacations). Instead, 20% of my budgeted expenditures will go FIRST through the government, which will waste it on other causes and only leave a portion left over to those who provided me with goods/services. The question is: can the less fortunate get access to my money through working for it (providing me with goods or services) or is there some impediment to their participating in that system? There will always be crippled people, etc... but what about the rest?

Thank goodness my Dhandho investment is neither "liquid" nor is it "real estate". I don't have to pay tax on that asset under your proposal.

The size of the estate shouldn't matter. Depends on what your goal is. If you intend to limit one individual from being given too much, then it should be an inheritance tax instead of an estate tax. $10m inherited by an only child is very different from $20m inherited by 8 children (4 of them spouses of 4 children born) and 14 grandchildren (22 people all put together). It's not a dynasty when you inherit less than a million! $20m may look like a lot, but it really only matters how much each person is actually getting IMO. My grandmother died in 2011 and she had about $18 million in shares, cash, and property. She had 4 children, all surviving, and each was married. There are 14 grandchildren including myself -- we were all at least 35 yrs old. It looks like a lot, but it's not a dynasty. The only people to get more than a million were the children, who were all in their late 60s and early-mid 70s at the time. It's not going to ruin their lives and they are too old for it to become a "dynasty" problem -- once divided amongst their children, it's just not a mind-blowing amount of money and won't change the lives much. So to meet social goals of limiting dynastic wealth, I don't see why a $17m estate necessarily needs to be taxed. And it wasn't taxed -- her estate was in Australia.

Was there dynastic wealth before the gift and estate taxes were created? Or did they solve a problem that only exists in the imagination? http://www.forbes.com/sites/phildemuth/2014/07/07/the-family-is-a-machine-for-destroying-wealth/ Ah an article from Forbes magazine about no dynastic wealth. Wasn't the magazine started by the current Forbes' grandfather about 100 years ago. I believe the word you are reaching for is "nepotism". Forbes works for his money. Was he fairly chosen for the job out of a pool of thousands of candidates? Probably not. http://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-businessmen/ceos/steve-forbes-net-worth-2/

Was there dynastic wealth before the gift and estate taxes were created? Or did they solve a problem that only exists in the imagination? http://www.forbes.com/sites/phildemuth/2014/07/07/the-family-is-a-machine-for-destroying-wealth/

Sort of... you can't tell it how fast you plan on driving and then have it plan the proper route for you. It can set you out down a path and then only later tell you that you won't make it unless you slow down. It's not quite what they advertise it to be.

I would agree with you if gas stations were typically located a few hundred miles apart, with none in between. People in gasoline cars don't need to think about whether they'll make it from gas station A to gas station B when they are planning what route to drive on summer vacation. They simply don't even consider the possibility that driving 80 versus driving 65 will leave them stranded with an empty gas tank.

I don't blame the EPA because the EPA just puts out a number. The average person who talks to me about my car doesn't understand how much range declines with just a modest increase in speed -- like from 65 to 75. Tesla uses the EPA's number as a marketing tool without enough clear emphasis that there is a huge drop-off in range at higher speeds. Probably because they don't want people to see it as the unsexy car that has to be in the slow lane when you set out on the exciting first roadtrip of summer. There you are in your fancy new car, going 65 while everyone is passing you. You dare not speed up for fear that you won't make it to your destination. Elon Musk does not want people to think of his cars that way. It's different with electric cars because the buyer needs to properly assess what the range is going to look like given their preferential speed of driving. This is critically important to get right because of the lack of charging options between waypoints.

I bought the car but not the stock. So just like the shorts have lost a lot of money on Tesla, Tesla has cost me a lot of money. But at least I get to drive around with my losses. I didn't buy the stock, nor did I short it. I just said I have no way of valuing it when it was $30 -- some people thought it was overpriced at $30 and shorted it, but they were really overvaluing their ability to see into the future. I believe value investing works if you stick to things that can be valued with a higher degree of certainty -- and you need a predictable thing to wager on in order for that to happen. So that's where you get to all the attributes that Buffett likes about companies -- I just think he figured out at some point that in order to be a value investor you really need to stay within a circle of predictability.

I predict more alcohol will be consumed when driverless cars eliminate the "designated driver". Also, currently I see people have one drink at the bar (or at lunch) before driving home. Why not have three instead? Driverless cars are therefore likely to drive sales of booze and healthcare. So if you own a pub, you'll probably see your margins expand as you can sell more drinks per customer. I bet this is already happening with Uber and Lift -- would love to see the data. I drank an extra few last night because we used Uber to drive only a mile across the neighborhood to a dinner party. There were more liquor sales generated last night and it's 100% thanks to Uber.

You'd also get a 300-mile range with the new 90kwh battery. How often do you wish you had a longer range on your 85? It doesn't work that way. Nobody is going to drive a P90D at 55 MPH in order to attain 300 mile range EPA estimate. My P85 starts out with 265 EPA range, but I only get 200 actual miles out of a full charge. I drive 75-80 MPH. Higher speed,more drag, less range. Where is the customer driving a car that sporty and adheres to 55 MPH? Musk is full of shit here, and IMP should stop bullshitting people. Don't be sneaky, you can just be honest and be less of a salesman. It won't hurt to come clean.

I love Spaceballs. Seen it a dozen times. We're combing the desert!

Well, I hate to say it... but I'll probably need to trade in my car for this one because mine takes about 4.2 seconds to get to 60. That's 50% longer!: With the "Ludicrous Mode," the new Tesla Model S P90D will get to 60 in just 2.8 seconds. http://money.cnn.com/2015/07/17/autos/tesla-ludicrous-mode/index.html?iid=hp-toplead-dom

Happy Birthday!

It was suggested to be 12 months roughly from the closing of the first acquisition. So that would be roughly at year's end. A new timeline hasn't been suggested as far as I know.

That's the primary reason to go Roth. The tax bill is settled. The Regular IRA will compound at 10% annually -- so the tax liability will also compound at 10% annually. So think of the Roth IRA as letting you make a phantom contribution (the tax bill) that will compound at 10% annually. The Regular IRA doesn't let you do that, so you have to somehow come up with after-tax 10% compounding for the monies that will eventually settle your tax bill, which is obviously much harder.

Buffett and Munger learned that in order to confidently buy a company for less than intrinsic value, they must first predict the future path of the business (it's future earnings). Therefore they decided to purchase businesses that have a far more predictable future. That's where all the talk about "moats" and "boring businesses" and "high quality" comes into play. They realized that they have an advantage in predicting the future if they focus their efforts on finding predictable situations. Otherwise they won't invest ("too hard" pile).

You could put 100% of your net worth into a house. But you can hedge out fire/flood/earthquake risk with insurance. So you can do that with a lot of concentrated equity positions too... using put options. So to answer the question, there would need to be an options market for the security.

I think discussing any leisure activity and hobbies is fine. It's like this... war is boring most of the time, and then there are brief intervals of extreme excitement/fear. You drink, shoot drugs, chase women, talk about cars and hobbies to pass the long boring interludes. But you drop all of that discussion when the shooting starts up again.

After being spoiled by the excitement of 2006-2009, and then again in late 2011, I just find it more interesting during these days of doldrums to debate the ethics of criminalized prostitution and drugs. Money, women and drugs. Not enough money to be made lately, so thoughts lean to women and drugs. Let the trade winds blow again and we'll get back to the business of money hopefully.

These two historical accounts are page turners: The Johnstown Flood by David McCullough http://www.amazon.com/The-Johnstown-Flood-David-McCullough/dp/0671207148 A Dawn Like Thunder by Robert J. Mrazek http://www.amazon.com/Dawn-Like-Thunder-Torpedo-Squadron/dp/0316056537/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1432848102&sr=1-1&keywords=A+Dawn+Like+Thunder