Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 11-09-2008, 05:28 PM   #41
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Bikerdude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,901
Quote:
Originally Posted by . . . Yrs to Go View Post
Pretty sure if you are in a tax bracket lower than 25% your qualified dividends are taxed at 5%.

Dividends - Tax Glossary

OK. At least the guy gets a little break on taxes now that his portfolio is only worth $420,000 YTD. I doubt most retiree's would be 100% equities in any case.
__________________

__________________
“I guess I should warn you, if I turn out to be particularly clear, you've probably misunderstood what I've said” Alan Greenspan
Bikerdude is offline   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 11-09-2008, 05:43 PM   #42
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
FIRE'd@51's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,315
Quote:
Originally Posted by . . . Yrs to Go View Post
Pretty sure if you are in a tax bracket lower than 25% your qualified dividends are taxed at 5%.
Actually, starting in 2008, they are taxed at 0% - see Dex's post #24.
__________________

__________________
FIRE'd@51 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2008, 09:24 AM   #43
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
FinanceDude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 12,484
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2B View Post
Is it annuity time?

I'm only half serious but way back when our tax code was so onerous that it made sense to have an annuity. It's a shame when bad tax code drives people towards bad investment decisions. Does anyone remember the great limited partnership collapse? They only existed to avoid taxes. After that was removed, the poor investment that most were came quickly to light.
Had a limited partnership, lost everything, luckily only $10,000........

Forget the $250,000 level, that was a campaign number. I suspect the real number will fall closer to $100,000 or so household income......

Obama will have an easy time raising taxes because he can say that we have to "undue the economic collapse brought on by the Bush Administration", it easily gives him 2-3 years to do whatever he wants.........
__________________
Consult with your own advisor or representative. My thoughts should not be construed as investment advice. Past performance is no guarantee of future results (love that one).......:)


This Thread is USELESS without pics.........:)
FinanceDude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2008, 09:46 AM   #44
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
haha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Hooverville
Posts: 22,380
Quote:
Originally Posted by . . . Yrs to Go View Post
I fully expect to pay for every service I consume (that includes an assumption of no Social Security, Medicare, etc. as these programs are all essentially insolvent). . . I hardly see how paying cash for each and every service is a free ride.

Meanwhile, the point was, the people who complain about "income redistribution" and "socialism" might want to consider the subsidies they receive before complaining too loudly.
You are missing something. You won't be consuming cash; you will be consuming real goods and services made and performed by real humans.

A common fallacy is to assume that the real economy equates to the monetary enonomy. It does not.

Likewise the real generational problem in much of the western world is not the amount of cash or assets in retirement or retiree medical programs, it is the number of young well trained workers.

I am certainly not advocating that everyone should have children, or that many people without children of their own don't do much to create a skilled and socialized follow-on generation. But it is annoying when people prattle the selfish and ill-informed line that you were taking. Where do you think your Doctors will come from, if not from the school system? You think that their own parents, in addition to feeding, clothing, and housing them, buying their medical care and physically and emotionally caring for them, should also be sole support of public schools? So that you can purchase the goods and services provided by somone else's children?

Ha
__________________
"As a general rule, the more dangerous or inappropriate a conversation, the more interesting it is."-Scott Adams
haha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2008, 09:56 AM   #45
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
walkinwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Denver
Posts: 2,675
Here's what the Obama plan says on his web-site:
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/taxes...Plan_FINAL.pdf

o Ordinary Income: The top two income tax brackets would return to their 1990’s levels of 36% and 39.6%. All other tax brackets would remain as they are today. Obama would also restore the 1990’s levels for the personal exemption and itemized deduction phaseouts (known as PEP and Pease). Obama would work with the Treasury Department to adjust the thresholds of these rates slightly to ensure that no married couple making less than $250,000 (or single making less than $200,000) was affected by these changes.

o Capital Gains: Families with incomes below $250,000 will continue to pay the capital gains rates that they pay today. For those in the top two income tax brackets – likewise adjusted to affect only families over 250,000 – Obama will create a new top capital gains rate of 20 percent. Obama’s 20% rate is equal is the lowest rate that existed in the 1990s and the rate that President Bush proposed in 2001. It is almost a third lower than the rate that President Reagan signed into law in 1986.vii

o Dividends: The top dividends rate for people making over $250,000 would be set at 20 percent. Dividends will not return to being taxed at ordinary income tax rates. Obama’s 20 percent rate on dividends will be 39 percent lower than the rate President Bush proposed in 2001, and would be
lower than all but 5 of the last 92 years we have been taxing dividends.
__________________
walkinwood is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2008, 10:46 AM   #46
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Gone4Good's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 5,381
Quote:
Originally Posted by haha View Post
You are missing something. You won't be consuming cash; you will be consuming real goods and services made and performed by real humans.
True. But the assertion that somehow this creates a "free ride" is, in a word, balderdash.

Wealth is a claim on labor. Weather that labor is performed by today's workers or future workers is irrelevant. The idea that someone who delays consuming wealth today in favor of consuming wealth tomorrow is somehow getting a "free ride" is . . . balderdash.

In a simple economy with only one product, grain, the person who produces and saves enough grain to last him a lifetime can retire. It is clear he doesn't get a "free ride" from anyone. Our economy is far more complex but the concept is the same. The person who produces and saves enough to last him a lifetime can retire without a "free ride" from anyone. The temporal differences between when the person produces the surplus and when he consumes it is irrelevant. But in the case where everyone decides not to have children, the surpluses of our hypothetical saver are consumed by others and are not available to sustain him during retirement. The saver, in that case, is the one who is giving a free ride to others as they consume the fruits of his surplus labor.

By your logic a similar "free ride" is enjoyed by every retiree. The economy would collapse and wealth would disappear if every worker decided to retire at the same time (just as if every person decided not to have children). But I think most people here would find the notion that a retiree was somehow getting a "free ride" from those who continue to work is as preposterous as I find the notion that the child-free are somehow benefiting from a similar "free ride".

In any event, that wasn't the point. My point was that plenty of people who decry "socialism" gladly accept a socialized education system. Plenty of people who decry "wealth distribution" gladly accept the subsidies for child rearing. Plenty of people in this forum would gladly accept some form of socialized medical care because they know the challenges of self funding these expenditures.

Nowhere in the outcry against "socialism" and "wealth distribution" do we generally hear any comment about the social desirability or benefits of these programs . . . which is, after all, the objection you raise. Typically those complaining about "socialized" this or "socialized" that complain because they see someone else as the recipient. I'm just pointing out that plenty of people gladly enjoy socialism when they are the beneficiary.
__________________
Gone4Good is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2008, 11:30 AM   #47
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,687
Obama, Clinton and McCain on Tax Policy - Jeremy Siegel - Yahoo!7 Money Matters

The policy will already expire in 2011, and Obama campained on increasing taxes on dividends and capital gains by sixty percent. I think the likelihood that the rates on dividends and capital gains staying where they are: very low.

Since much of this occurs because it is already in the tax code Obama is not actually raising taxes, it is already set to happen.

The democrats also actively wish to seek to eliminate the tax deductibility of 401K's. The elected majority most certainly will press forward with the plans they made very public.
__________________
Running_Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2008, 11:49 AM   #48
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Gone4Good's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 5,381
Quote:
Originally Posted by Running_Man View Post
The democrats also actively wish to seek to eliminate the tax deductibility of 401K's.
This is a bit suspect. A google search of {401(k) deductibility Democrat} yielded a bunch of blog sites but no real news articles. The top hit was Rush Limbaugh's site. Each of the google links I investigated referenced one comment by Rep. George Miller who suggested we weren't getting a particularly big savings bang for the "cost" of the 401(k) tax break.

One comment by one house member doesn't a policy make. So I'd guess the 401(k) tax break is pretty safe for the foreseeable future.
__________________
Gone4Good is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2008, 11:58 AM   #49
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
haha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Hooverville
Posts: 22,380
Probably we have taken this as far as it can be taken. I would like to point out that your wheat economy is ridiculous. I'd like to see a colonoscopy done by grains of wheat.
Quote:
By your logic a similar "free ride" is enjoyed by every retiree.
Wrong again. Since the neolithic period at latest people have had children to support them in their old age. Now my sons, one of whom makes seven figures year in and year out, support people like you. It isn't a free ride for the retired parent, it is a closely coupled generational bargain. Again, the free rider is you.

I don't blame you for this; free riding is a long tested evolutionary strategy. And of course, in order for you to free ride in this way you have to give up the biological point of life- to see one's genes make it into the future. However, your specious arguments are annoying, as is your resentment at what you mistakenly see as you having to overpay.

I would gladly trade any public benfits that I might get for what my sons could do for me if I needed help.

Ha
__________________
"As a general rule, the more dangerous or inappropriate a conversation, the more interesting it is."-Scott Adams
haha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2008, 12:11 PM   #50
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Gone4Good's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 5,381
Quote:
Originally Posted by haha View Post
Probably we have taken this as far as it can be taken.
Clearly as you and I apparently disagree that 1) wealth (or, maybe, more specifically money) is a claim on labor 2) that surplus labor can be saved and 3) spending surplus labor that you've accumulated is not a "free ride"

Quote:
Originally Posted by haha View Post
However, your specious arguments are annoying, as is your resentment at what you mistakenly see as you having to overpay.
Besides, I'm just claiming that socialized education is, well, socialized education. If you're annoyed by being the beneficiary of a social program, it's not my fault just for pointing out that it is a social program.
__________________
Gone4Good is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2008, 12:29 PM   #51
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Gone4Good's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 5,381
Quote:
Originally Posted by unclemick View Post
Get those rich people - especially those catagories that DO NOT include me.
By the may . . . my original comment was prompted by this quote . . .which is still apropos.
__________________
Gone4Good is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2008, 12:42 PM   #52
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,687
Quote:
Originally Posted by . . . Yrs to Go View Post
This is a bit suspect. A google search of {401(k) deductibility Democrat} yielded a bunch of blog sites but no real news articles. The top hit was Rush Limbaugh's site. Each of the google links I investigated referenced one comment by Rep. George Miller who suggested we weren't getting a particularly big savings bang for the "cost" of the 401(k) tax break.

One comment by one house member doesn't a policy make. So I'd guess the 401(k) tax break is pretty safe for the foreseeable future.
Here is the plan that was discussed, as brought to Congress by the Democrat chair. This is actual testimony sought for and gotten on eliminating the 401K tax breaks by democrats: Here is a short discussion of what was sought followed by a transcript of the actual testimony. This is far more than "one comment"
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122593259568103473.html?mod=special_page_campaig n2008_mostpop

http://www.investmentnews.com/apps/p.../REG/310139971

Would Obama, Dems Kill 401(k) Plans? - Capital Commerce (usnews.com)

here is her testimony to Congress. I took it seriously at the time, I don't think you get public backing from democratic leadership if they aren't contemplating this
http://www.house.gov/ed_workforce/te...hilarducci.pdf
__________________
Running_Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2008, 12:47 PM   #53
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
FinanceDude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 12,484
Same old, same old. To raise revenues, there are 3 ways:

1)Cut spending (quite unlikely)

2)Raise taxes (likely)

3)A combination of both (unlikely)
__________________
Consult with your own advisor or representative. My thoughts should not be construed as investment advice. Past performance is no guarantee of future results (love that one).......:)


This Thread is USELESS without pics.........:)
FinanceDude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2008, 12:49 PM   #54
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,268
Quote:
Originally Posted by FinanceDude View Post
Had a limited partnership, lost everything, luckily only $10,000........

Forget the $250,000 level, that was a campaign number. I suspect the real number will fall closer to $100,000 or so household income......

Obama will have an easy time raising taxes because he can say that we have to "undue the economic collapse brought on by the Bush Administration", it easily gives him 2-3 years to do whatever he wants.........


Ding Ding Ding! This man wins the prize!
__________________
utrecht is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2008, 01:58 PM   #55
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Gone4Good's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 5,381
Quote:
Originally Posted by Running_Man View Post
Here is the plan that was discussed, as brought to Congress by the Democrat chair.
Thanks for the links.
__________________
Gone4Good is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2008, 03:44 PM   #56
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
haha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Hooverville
Posts: 22,380
Quote:
Originally Posted by . . . Yrs to Go View Post
Besides, I'm just claiming that socialized education is, well, socialized education. If you're annoyed by being the beneficiary of a social program, it's not my fault just for pointing out that it is a social program.
I agree completely that education is socialized. I disagree that parents are the only beneficiaries. You are equally the benficiary, as are all of us.

Incidentally, although I paid school tax all my life, I never sent my kids to public school.

The annoyance is not that we all benfit from socialized education, but rather from your rather churlish resentful attitude about your taxation toward this end.

As to whether or not labor can be stored, of course it cannot be on a societal scale. To make it completely clear, imagine a retiring generation of very productive, very frugal citizens loeaded with bonds, stocks and cash, and a follow on generation that has been decimated by a terrible cataclysm say on the scale of WW1 in Europe. Now consult history about the problems that arose from that.

The demographic problem of not reproducing the better educated more economically productive class in America is not a money problem, it is demographic problem. From the Greek demos, meaning people. Could that be changed if congress suddenly approppriated trillions of dollars? Of course not- it takes years and years and the dedicated work of a generation as well as a lot of births to create the missing human capital.

Ha
__________________
"As a general rule, the more dangerous or inappropriate a conversation, the more interesting it is."-Scott Adams
haha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2008, 04:02 PM   #57
Moderator
Sarah in SC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Charleston, SC
Posts: 13,456
As a person who is childless by choice, I've often felt the way that Yrs to Go does, that I'm wasting my money on other people's kids. But as I've gotten older, I've seen that I am, however unwittingly, a beneficiary of those kids.

Ha's points are well taken in this discussion, and although I wish my taxes paid for better schools (SC not being at the top of any list of scholars), it would seem that at least some of those young folks are turning out alright.

As always, discussions on this board remind me of my own biases & political positions and force me to revisit and challenge them, just in case I might need some, ahem, refinement as I get older.

I am very happy to be childfree, yet try not to begrudge my dollars spent to assist those embroiled in the very difficult job of raising quality children.
__________________
“One day your life will flash before your eyes. Make sure it's worth watching.”
Gerard Arthur Way

Sarah in SC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2008, 04:26 PM   #58
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Gone4Good's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 5,381
Quote:
Originally Posted by haha View Post
The annoyance is not that we all benfit from socialized education, but rather from your rather churlish resentful attitude about your taxation toward this end.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarah in SC View Post
As a person who is childless by choice, I've often felt the way that Yrs to Go does, that I'm wasting my money on other people's kids.
As is often the case, both the sarcasm of my original post and subsequent attempts to clarify my point was lost. To be clear, I'm in no way resentful about the taxes I pay for our education system (except to the extent that each dollar seems to result in less education than is true in other developed countries).

The point was, and is, that folks only decry social programs when someone else is the beneficiary. Because almost everyone directly receives the benefits from a socialized education system, almost no one complains (or considers it "socialism" or "wealth redistribution", even though it is exactly that).

But I continue to disagree that anyone who produces multiple times what he consumes over the course of a lifetime is somehow getting a "free ride".
__________________
Gone4Good is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2008, 04:50 PM   #59
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,812
Quote:
Originally Posted by . . . Yrs to Go View Post
It's hard to talk about taxes without talking politics because the two are almost inexorably linked.

Having said that, it is not completely clear to me why we should have a tax code that favors capital over labor, as ours currently does. It seems to me the best tax policy would be the one that creates the least amount of economic distortion. If that were your objective, you'd want all sources of income to be treated the same.
I can agree with this.

It always bothers me to hear people say "but rich people (people with capital) create jobs", as if "jobs" can be created out of nothing. The requirements for a job are a consumer who is willing to pay for something and a worker who is willing to do the work to produce it. Sometimes, it doesn't take much financial capital at all to get the work done - think of all the self-employed people with modest investments in their businesses. Sometimes it takes a lot of capital to buy the tools that will make the worker more productive.

But there is no reason to think that the person who provides the capital needs/deserves a better deal than the one who provides the labor.
__________________
Independent is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2008, 04:56 PM   #60
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 4,764
I settle it by voting. As a childless person I can vote no or yes on any school bond issue. Problem solved It either gets voted in or not. Great country oy!
__________________

__________________
Notmuchlonger is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Roll Call: admin. says bailout in the works for months; reps will have only days? ladelfina FIRE and Money 6 09-24-2008 04:41 AM
Proposed law may change muni bond taxes wildcat FIRE and Money 2 09-10-2006 06:52 PM
2008 cap gains taxes: zero in 10% & 15% income-tax brackets Nords FIRE and Money 37 08-02-2006 05:41 PM
Title change effect on property taxes donheff FIRE and Money 5 05-25-2006 10:12 PM
Mutual fund: better to reinvest cap gains/dividend soupcxan FIRE and Money 4 11-08-2004 01:00 PM

 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:27 PM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.