Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 12-19-2011, 05:33 PM   #81
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 3,862
Quote:
Originally Posted by Midpack View Post
I've read several articles that suggest we should Federal target revenues (taxes etc.) at 19% of GDP and Federal spending at 20% of GDP. Probably not abruptly, but within 10 years at the longest.

Along with a lot of moderates ±, I'm more than fine with what that implies given where we actually are now.

I'm not the first to say it by a long way, everyone is going to have to pay more taxes AND spending is going to have to be reduced across the board. Politically we seem to be a million miles from that middle ground at the moment, but I haven't given up hope someone will actually apply some data to the debate eventually, unlike what the far right and the far left have been doing lately.
Relative to the chart, we are being forced into unusual deficit spending due to deleveraging during the past few years. While it may continue another 5 years, it shouldn't be permanent. Likewise, the Bush tax cuts won't be permanent either if Congress insists on doing nothing. We know Social Security is actually in decent shape, if you don't count the fact that Congress owes it a ton of money. I don't think it's as bad as it looks in the chart.
__________________

__________________
Animorph 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 12-19-2011, 06:08 PM   #82
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 11,614
Quote:
Originally Posted by nun View Post
Chicargo School aren't concerned with people at all, just markets.
Those markets and the industries they represent do more good, and feed more people, than all the do-gooders and charities combined. Let's not lose sight of where wealth and prosperity are created (so that the bounty can later be redistributed).
__________________

__________________
"Freedom begins when you tell Mrs. Grundy to go fly a kite." - R. Heinlein
samclem is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2011, 07:00 PM   #83
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,811
Quote:
Originally Posted by Midpack View Post
I've read several articles that suggest we should Federal target revenues (taxes etc.) at 19% of GDP and Federal spending at 20% of GDP. Probably not abruptly, but within 10 years at the longest.

Along with a lot of moderates ±, I'm more than fine with what that implies given where we actually are now.

I'm not the first to say it by a long way, everyone is going to have to pay more taxes AND spending is going to have to be reduced across the board. Politically we seem to be a million miles from that middle ground at the moment, but I haven't given up hope someone will actually apply some data to the debate eventually, unlike what the far right and the far left have been doing lately.
I'm going to guess that if I look at the details behind that chart I'd discover that health care (Medicare, Medicaid, Federal employees and retirees, ...) makes up much of the growth in spending.

We know that we already spend much more than any other rich country, something like 16% of GDP vs. 11%. If we simply copied the health care system of any other country, we'd save ourselves most of that increase.
__________________
Independent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2011, 07:07 PM   #84
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Huston55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: The Bay Area
Posts: 1,799
Quote:
Originally Posted by ERD50 View Post
Wise choice of words (assuming it was intentional, and I think it was), as amoral does not imply immoral.

But so what? When I think of the Adam Smith story of the butcher, baker, brewer providing services for their own welfare, not the welfare of others, I think it is an amoral system that works pretty well.

I actually have more 'faith' in that system, then I do in a system where we simply rely on 'faith' that people will do the 'right thing'. Esp in a world where we may not agree on what the 'right thing' is. But in a free market transaction, both parties feel they are getting a fair deal, or they simply move on.


-ERD50
Quote:
Originally Posted by samclem View Post
Those markets and the industries they represent do more good, and feed more people, than all the do-gooders and charities combined. Let's not lose sight of where wealth and prosperity is created (so that it can later be redistributed).
Thank you. Let's please keep the religion and do-gooder-ness out of the economy. It's already complicated enough.

Back to the OP, I'm trying my best to become a member of the 1% (by ALL definitions). And, I keep coming back to this forum for help to do it.
__________________
You may be whatever you resolve to be.
Huston55 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2011, 07:31 PM   #85
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
nun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,834
Quote:
Originally Posted by eridanus View Post
Amoral | Define Amoral at Dictionary.com

"Synonyms
See immoral. "

Wait, now I'm confused. What did nun mean?
Without morals...ie not good or bad.
__________________
“So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.”

Current AA: 65% Equity Funds / 20% Bonds / 7% Stable Value /3% Cash / 5% TIAA Traditional
Retired Mar 2014 at age 52, target WR: 0.0%,
Income from pension and rent
nun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2011, 07:38 PM   #86
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
nun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,834
Quote:
Originally Posted by ERD50 View Post
Wise choice of words (assuming it was intentional, and I think it was), as amoral does not imply immoral.

-ERD50
Thank you for the compliment
__________________
“So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.”

Current AA: 65% Equity Funds / 20% Bonds / 7% Stable Value /3% Cash / 5% TIAA Traditional
Retired Mar 2014 at age 52, target WR: 0.0%,
Income from pension and rent
nun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2011, 01:35 AM   #87
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,012
Quote:
Originally Posted by ziggy29 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Animorph
Seems like you'd need to have a table that listed every possible buy year/sell year combo and the resulting inflation correction. And we'd have to look up that number for each sale. While I like the idea, and it would be nice with Turbo Tax doing the work, no way would I want to add that task to a non-computerized return.
Yeah, that was pretty much my thought unless you assigned every year an "index value" without regard to the day of the year. Thus a holding period of 1/1/2008 to 12/31/2011 would be treated the same as 12/31/2008 to 1/1/2011, even though the latter was barely half as long.
just use the published monthly table of CPI index values
__________________
jdw_fire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2011, 04:35 AM   #88
Recycles dryer sheets
justplainbll's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Easten Long Island
Posts: 414
Ekaterina Rybolovleva seems o be an interesting example of a top 1 per center.
__________________
justplainbll is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2011, 07:30 AM   #89
gone traveling
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Eastern PA
Posts: 3,851
Quote:
Originally Posted by nun View Post
I'd like to see the tax code simplified so that capital gains and dividends are taxed as income.
They are taxed on the corporation side before "you get yours", and again on your side with personal income tax when you receive the gains/dividends.

So how much total tax do you feel is fair in your world?

BTW, that's why I think statements by some folks (e.g. Buffett) that he "pays" less tax than his secretary are taken out of context. Sure, his cap gains/dividends may be taxed at 15%, but that's not the total story. If the corp tax was not paid, we could assume he would have received a higher amount in distributions.

Add the corp tax and the personal gains tax together and then compare it to his secretary - who did not take the risk that any investor does when investing for income.

I would agree that gains/dividends be taxed as normal income, but then get rid of the corp tax before doing so.
__________________
rescueme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2011, 08:36 AM   #90
Moderator
ziggy29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 15,612
Quote:
Originally Posted by rescueme View Post
I would agree that gains/dividends be taxed as normal income, but then get rid of the corp tax before doing so.
You don't even need to completely scrap the corporate tax in order to treat dividends fairly -- just exempt the portion of profits the company pays out in dividends from taxation and tax what they don't pay out. Then it would make complete sense to treat dividend income as ordinary taxable income.

Capital gains could be treated as ordinary income as long as there was some provision to avoid taxing a large chunk of "phantom gains" due to inflation.
__________________
"Hey, for every ten dollars, that's another hour that I have to be in the work place. That's an hour of my life. And my life is a very finite thing. I have only 'x' number of hours left before I'm dead. So how do I want to use these hours of my life? Do I want to use them just spending it on more crap and more stuff, or do I want to start getting a handle on it and using my life more intelligently?" -- Joe Dominguez (1938 - 1997)

RIP to Reemy, my avatar dog (2003 - 9/16/2017)
ziggy29 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2011, 08:37 AM   #91
gone traveling
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Eastern PA
Posts: 3,851
Quote:
Originally Posted by ziggy29 View Post
You don't even need to completely scrap the corporate tax in order to treat dividends fairly -- just exempt the portion of profits the company pays out in dividends from taxation and tax what they don't pay out. Then it would make complete sense to treat dividend income as ordinary taxable income.
Exactly (you improved my comment - thanks!)....
__________________

__________________
rescueme 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
Rolling Stone top 100 Guitarists MichaelB Other topics 35 11-24-2011 06:28 PM
Maybe you are in the top 1% and unaware of your status? Lsbcal FIRE and Money 3 10-27-2011 04:30 PM
Top TV Theme Songs Purron Other topics 26 09-27-2011 04:51 PM
Top 10 Worst Tax States for Retirees mickeyd FIRE and Money 31 07-07-2011 03:31 PM

 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:49 PM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.