House passes bill to avert Fiscal Cliff

[JoeWras]

OK, seems most people here are happy. I guess I am too, for the current bill. Not much effect on me, even though I'm still w*rking.

However, I think phase #2 could cause some more pain for us young dreamers. I think they are really going to have to look seriously at raising retirement ages again, and this could affect those of us under 55 or so. They will probably have to add "means testing" for medicare. Hopefully, this won't be asset based, because those of us without pensions could get bitten by our investment assests. Just guessing here.

Finally, anyone notice that they added a 401k to 401k roth conversion in the bill, much like the current IRA conversion? This will come in handy for me, because I plan to use my early retirement time (before SS) to do conversions up a reasonable tax bracket. (Not doing it now while w*rking.)

 

[bUU]

I'm coming to the conclusion that that isn't something "added" but rather is something for which the rules are being changed, opening it up to more people. The reason why this nuance is important is that it helps us understand that it doesn't in any way affect the Backdoor Roth.

At least that's my hope.

 

[haha]

I'm at work so could only skim the details of this supposed resolution. But from what I can tell both parties should be ashamed of themselves, and have shown a lack of integrity. Neither side wants to tackle the true thorny issues to get our deficit down (i.e., and not saddle our children and grandchildren with serious financial debt).
They are all too busy with finger-pointing and pushing their own political agendae, with no regard for the economic impact. I definitely have a political leaning, which I am not going to mention. In this case, I strongly believe they are all guilty and delaying this another 2 months only means....that in 2 months they will delay it again, and again, and again......

Well my goodness, this is shocking. Many voters have children and grandchildren that come from groups that have never paid taxes, and never will- but they will get benefits each and every year. So what sort of vote might best guarantee their votes? Other voters have no children or grandchildren, and think that on the long chance if they ever do they will worry about that when it comes along. Others may have children and /or grandchildren, but reasonably enough favor a bird in hand. After all, you can just advise your granddaughter to get a government job.

Once politics is understood one easily comes to this conclusion: always take a bird in hand, and cyncism is always in order.

Ha

 

[bUU]

I think that we run the risk of not understanding the situation properly if we assume that what's happening is "not wanting to tackle the true thorny issues". Both sides want to tackle the true thorny issues, but they want to do it differently. There may not be a solution that is acceptable to more than a minority of Americans.

 

[NW-Bound]

Well my goodness, this is shocking...

Once politics is understood one easily comes to this conclusion: always take a bird in hand, and cyncism is always in order.

Ha

Nearly all of my children and their cousins are liberally minded, and think that the government will put any and all of the taxes it takes in to good use. I am not sure if they have found any tax that they do not like. Well, now that they have been working for a few years and moving up the tax brackets, will they change their mind? Time will tell, but for now, I say unto them that their taxes are supporting my retirement. The same with my still-working brothers.

I think a flat tax would simplify a lot, and keep people from playing the shell game. But hey, how do I refuse gimmes that I can benefit from? We may go down the tube together, but meanwhile I will spend some time to evaluate different liquors and spirits. I went to a liquor store recently, and gosh, there's so much to try, and as I do not really drink that much nor daily, I fear my time is running out.

See, I can only take care of myself and mind my own business.

 

[bUU]

The problem with the politicians who propose a flat tax is that they refuse to acknowledge a reasonable base for living. I bet that many liberals would buy-into the idea of a flat tax if the first $46425.60 of income for a typical family of four was not taxed, and then income above that was taxed at whatever rate would leave things revenue neutral, but the politicians who propose a flat tax are always so Richie Rich-friendly that they'd never agree to a living wage as base.

 

[Telly]

I think I'm getting old. I'm starting to care more and more for what kind of world our kids, and our grandkids, will have to slog through.

I did not view the kick-the-can-along as anything but a negative.

Before Federal DEBT reduction, we have to get through Federal DEFICIT reduction... to a budget surplus. I am having doubts that I will live to see it.

There's never a good time to cut expenses, so we just won't do it.

I'll leave one thought on cuts... buried away in a newspaper article a couple weeks ago, in with talk of reducing future SS COLAs by using Chained CPI, was a paragraph about using Chained CPI for SS Wage Indexing, rather than using US Average Wage on a year-by-year basis. Now THAT could be a disaster if applied to wages long gone by, as the AWI increase has exceeded the CPI over almost all years. I would dread to think that someone would want to go back in time and recalculate your SS wage indexing year by year to a lesser amount. The impact could be huge, resulting in people who have not claimed SS yet, but not far off, getting much less than the calculators and old mailed statements would show.

 

[NW-Bound]

The problem with the politicians who propose a flat tax is that they refuse to acknowledge a reasonable base for living. I bet that many liberals would buy-into the idea of a flat tax if the first $46425.60 of income for a typical family of four was not taxed, and then income above that was taxed at whatever rate would leave things revenue neutral, but the politicians who propose a flat tax are always so Richie Rich-friendly that they'd never agree to a living wage as base.

A correction is in order. I should have said a "flatter and simpler tax", not an absolutely flat tax. I also do not follow politics enough to know the subtle nuances that different pols have proposed, and of course the devil is in the details.

However, so far, all the talk is about taxing the Richie Rich, but are there enough of them to really bring in revenue to support the trillion-dollar deficit?

But now that that side of the equation is settled, let's see how they tackle the spending side next. Or perhaps I should just turn everything off and just get back to surfing the Web for liquor reviews.

 

[JoeWras]

I'll leave one thought on cuts... buried away in a newspaper article a couple weeks ago, in with talk of reducing future SS COLAs by using Chained CPI, was a paragraph about using Chained CPI for SS Wage Indexing, rather than using US Average Wage on a year-by-year basis. Now THAT could be a disaster if applied to wages long gone by, as the AWI increase has exceeded the CPI over almost all years. I would dread to think that someone would want to go back in time and recalculate your SS wage indexing year by year to a lesser amount. The impact could be huge, resulting in people who have not claimed SS yet, but not far off, getting much less than the calculators and old mailed statements would show.

Agree. And it could be coming to a Young Dreamer near you soon.

 

[MichaelB]

Thanks all for a lively discussion