The Wealthometer

[pb4uski]

Interesting question is whether one should reduce tax-deferred assets by estimated taxes.

Depending on the rate and structure I could stomach a wealth tax if income taxes went away, but since this is associated with a Harvard professor I suppose that the wealth tax would be in addition to an income tax. If that is the case then no thank you - I already paid (substantially) each year as I built my wealth.

[Andre1969]

Quote:

Originally Posted by NW-Bound Anyway, when my NW is divided by 2, my ranking drops. Still, two together can live better than one with 1/2 NW, as many expenses are shared.

Just for kicks, I ran the numbers for a household of 2, and 3. There are three people in my house, but the other two are just roommates and not wives, so no jointly held assets or debt, so I figure they don't count into the equation.

But, for a household of 2, my rank only drops from 96% to 92%. And even for 3, it only drops to 89%.

I wonder though, if I should count them, because there is still some benefit. The rental income is one reason I've amassed as much as I have. They also help out with utilities and groceries, so overall it does reduce my living expenses?

[dunkelblau]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jon-nyc I was under the impression that the 1% threshold was more like $5MM.

I think you're right, the 1%-ers are the Barron's Penta crowd.

But maybe it's because this is household percentile and the typical household is two individuals? As a rough estimate 10% of households are above the 1M USD threshold, and it's one tenth of the previous level for each 5.5x in net worth. This upper tail power law works out to roughly a half-population per Golden Ratio (1.62x) in net worth. Another way of looking at it, the median household above a threshold X is the Golden Ratio times X.

[NW-Bound]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andre1969 Just for kicks, I ran the numbers for a household of 2, and 3. There are three people in my house, but the other two are just roommates and not wives...

Wives? Would that be legal where you live?

[ziggy29]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pb4uski Interesting question is whether one should reduce tax-deferred assets by estimated taxes.

Yeah -- I guessed X and got X+4, but nearly 3/4 of that is tied up in 401K and TIRA investments which will be taxed when withdrawn. If I reduced their value by (say) 25%, it goes from X+4 to X+2.

[MasterBlaster]

The Wall Street Journal had an income-based "Rich-O-Meter"

You can see it here:

The Wall Street Journal - WSJ.com

To be in the "1%" You need an income of $507k per year.

[NW-Bound]

Uh Oh! Just a quick search on the Web found the following headlines.

"Men are more likely to fib than women, telling on average three lies a day.
Each year this amounts to 1,092 lies as opposed to women who were found to lie 728 times over 12 months."

and

Science Proves it: Men Lie More Than Women - CBS News

How did they count these lies so accurately? And are the researchers men or women?

[scrabbler1]

phhhhhht, it showed me nothing readable when I hit the "calculate" button. Just a blank area in the screen.

This was fun hahahaha

[arky]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dunkelblau I think you're right, the 1%-ers are the Barron's Penta crowd. But maybe it's because this is household percentile and the typical household is two individuals? As a rough estimate 10% of households are above the 1M USD threshold, and it's one tenth of the previous level for each 5.5x in net worth. This upper tail power law works out to roughly a half-population per Golden Ratio (1.62x) in net worth. Another way of looking at it, the median household above a threshold X is the Golden Ratio times X.

Huh !?!

[marko]

I x-d out the second I saw "how would you tax wealth?".

Another Harvard bow-tie weenie who makes $500K a year who (my guess) won't check the box to be taxed at the optional higher Mass income tax rate himself but wants everyone else to do so.

[mpeirce]

Wealth tax

I knew it was coming once I accumulated some...

[Amethyst]

Moreover, all fibs are not created equal! We must have a ranking scale for lying, based on the scope of the fib. For example: 1 point for saying someone looks fine, when actually they look terrible; 5 points for saying you need to work late at the office Saturday night; and 10 points for whoppers told by politicians

Amethyst

Quote:

Originally Posted by NW-Bound Uh Oh! Just a quick search on the Web found the following headlines. "Men are more likely to fib than women, telling on average three lies a day. Each year this amounts to 1,092 lies as opposed to women who were found to lie 728 times over 12 months." and Science Proves it: Men Lie More Than Women - CBS News How did they count these lies so accurately? And are the researchers men or women?

[NW-Bound]

Quote:

Originally Posted by NW-Bound Uh Oh! Just a quick search on the Web found the following headlines. "Men are more likely to fib than women, telling on average three lies a day. Each year this amounts to 1,092 lies as opposed to women who were found to lie 728 times over 12 months." and Science Proves it: Men Lie More Than Women - CBS News How did they count these lies so accurately? And are the researchers men or women?

I made the above post in the thread "Give your money to a woman".

How does it end up being here?

[comicbookgujy]

Sounds like a scam to encourage taxing of WEALTH! I'm in top 7% but only because I LBYM my entire life and I'll be damned if they try to tax my life saving!

Time to spend it on Hooker and blow if they start taxing wealth.

[Arifriekinel]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pb4uski ... Depending on the rate and structure I could stomach a wealth tax if income taxes went away...

I completely agree. Taxing the same money twice just because you keep it around just doesn't float well with me.

[HFWR]

Quote:

Originally Posted by comicbookgujy Time to spend it on Hookers and or blow if they start taxing wealth.

FIFY...

[Hermit]

Its really quite simple to figure out. You just have to think like a bank robber politician... That's where the money is!

[marko]

Quote:

Originally Posted by comicbookgujy Sounds like a scam to encourage taxing of WEALTH! I'm in top 7% but only because I LBYM my entire life and I'll be damned if they try to tax my life saving! Time to spend it on Hooker and blow if they start taxing wealth.

"I spent half my money on gambling, alcohol and wild women...the other half I wasted" W C Fields.

[marko]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pb4uski Interesting question is whether one should reduce tax-deferred assets by estimated taxes. Depending on the rate and structure I could stomach a wealth tax if income taxes went away, but since this is associated with a Harvard professor I suppose that the wealth tax would be in addition to an income tax. If that is the case then no thank you - I already paid (substantially) each year as I built my wealth.

The idea would be to tax you on what you earn and then tax you on the earnings you didn't spend.

I'd assume the plan would then be to hand it to those who didn't earn anything and who spent more than you did.

Y'know, income inequality and all that.

Take heart: There's always a work-around!

[Gatordoc50]

A net worth of 0 puts you at 13%! Twenty five thousand and you're in the top half. So, it speaks more to the unbridled spending by the majority of Americans. Another flaw is that taxing the wealthy will do absolutely nothing to increase the net worth of those at the bottom.