Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 02-17-2013, 10:24 AM   #61
Moderator
ziggy29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 15,613
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan View Post
Isn't Medicare already means tested in that the premiums are higher once you are above a certain income
Yes, but IMO not nearly as much as it will likely be for me and those younger than me.
__________________

__________________
"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
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 02-17-2013, 10:30 AM   #62
Moderator
Alan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Eee Bah Gum
Posts: 21,146
Quote:
Originally Posted by ziggy29 View Post
Yes, but IMO not nearly as much as it will likely be for me and those younger than me.
True. Currently an extra $42/mo doesn't seem much for an AGI over $170k/year for MFJ.
__________________

__________________
Retired in Jan, 2010 at 55, moved to England in May 2016
Now it's adventure before dementia
Alan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2013, 10:37 AM   #63
Recycles dryer sheets
Stanley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bikerdude View Post

The only problem was that the income limits for taxation were not indexed for inflation. They remain at 1983 levels.
I wonder how many of these tax proposals are indexed for inflation?

Can we count on the financial press to raise this question?
__________________
Stanley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2013, 10:44 AM   #64
Moderator
ziggy29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 15,613
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stanley View Post
I wonder how many of these tax proposals are indexed for inflation?
I know the threshold for taxing "Cadillac" health plans (scheduled to start in 2018) is not indexed for inflation, so in a few years it may become the next AMT, ensnaring many people with even modest, higher-deductible plans.
__________________
"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 02-18-2013, 12:42 PM   #65
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,038
Quote:
Originally Posted by ziggy29 View Post
I know the threshold for taxing "Cadillac" health plans (scheduled to start in 2018) is not indexed for inflation, so in a few years it may become the next AMT, ensnaring many people with even modest, higher-deductible plans.
As intended I am sure.
__________________
In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not.
Lazarus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2013, 12:57 PM   #66
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Indialantic FL
Posts: 1,202
Quote:
Originally Posted by NW-Bound View Post
We can look at European countries that are destitute like Greece and Spain, where an entire young generation is wiped out by high unemployment to see where we do not want to go. Entitlements have to be cut, so that the young can survive.

.
Much of the unemployment in Europe has little to do with excess government spending. Old guild rules/organized labor rules keep new enterprises from starting in the first place. Protectionism is rampant. The excess government spending is just the norm over there to begin with. The unemployed are the first ones protesting cuts in government spending.
__________________
JimnJana
"The four most dangerous words in investing are 'This time it's different.'" - Sir John Templeton
jimnjana is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2013, 12:58 PM   #67
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
youbet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 9,965
Quote:
Originally Posted by explanade View Post
RMDs are only for 401ks and IRAs right?

Don't most people here have far more assets in taxable accounts? .
Can't speak for "most people," but more than half of my FIRE portfolio is in 401k's and TIRA's. RMD's, just around the corner for me (I'm 65), will be a huge tax issue and a significant factor in not being able to look poor while living middle class.
__________________
"I wasn't born blue blood. I was born blue-collar." John Wort Hannam
youbet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2013, 01:02 PM   #68
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
youbet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 9,965
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan View Post
True. Currently an extra $42/mo doesn't seem much for an AGI over $170k/year for MFJ.
Spoken like a man who is not paying it...........
__________________
"I wasn't born blue blood. I was born blue-collar." John Wort Hannam
youbet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2013, 01:07 PM   #69
Moderator
ziggy29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 15,613
Quote:
Originally Posted by youbet View Post
Spoken like a man who is not paying it...........
$42 per month on $170k of income is less than 0.3% of income. You may not like paying it and you may resent having to pay it, and I'm not saying I support a steeper means testing component to Medicare, but I think an extra 0.3% of income to secure reasonably low-cost, secure health insurance is definitely *not* much, IMO.
__________________
"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 02-18-2013, 01:12 PM   #70
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
youbet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 9,965
Quote:
Originally Posted by ziggy29 View Post
$42 per month on $170k of income is less than 0.3% of income. You may not like paying it and you may resent having to pay it, and I'm not saying I support a steeper means testing component to Medicare, but I think an extra 0.3% of income to secure reasonably low-cost, secure health insurance is definitely *not* much, IMO.
Of course!

Everyone has at least one group they don't belong to that they feel should be taxed at higher rates, have penalties imposed or pay surcharges. It's the American way!

One of mine is DINK couples with earned income. I think they need to pay at higher rates vs. other folks. Just my opinion. The other group would be people with FIRE portfolios. Money held at an institution (bank, credit union, S&L, brokerage, etc.) should be taxed just for being there and whether it earns income or not.

Our country needs more revenue. And I think other folks should pay more. I, of course, am already paying enough.

Edit: BTW Zig, your math is incorrect on the percentage. Remember, the $170k is for a couple. You either have to double the $42/mo to account for two people or use the $85k AGI point which applies to a single. Not a big deal. But it does seem silly to quote the higher MAGI number for a MFJ return but then only account for the Part B increase for one member of the couple. It's 0.593%.
__________________
"I wasn't born blue blood. I was born blue-collar." John Wort Hannam
youbet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2013, 02:13 PM   #71
Moderator
Alan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Eee Bah Gum
Posts: 21,146
Quote:
Originally Posted by youbet View Post
Spoken like a man who is not paying it...........
I would love to have an MAGI >$170k while on Medicare.

Edited to change AGI to MAGI
__________________
Retired in Jan, 2010 at 55, moved to England in May 2016
Now it's adventure before dementia
Alan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2013, 02:16 PM   #72
Moderator
ziggy29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 15,613
Quote:
Originally Posted by youbet View Post
Edit: BTW Zig, your math is incorrect on the percentage. Remember, the $170k is for a couple. You either have to double the $42/mo to account for two people or use the $85k AGI point which applies to a single. Not a big deal. But it does seem silly to quote the higher MAGI number for a MFJ return but then only account for the Part B increase for one member of the couple. It's 0.593%.
It wasn't silly, it was an oversight. Fair enough. But I suspect folks my age (and younger) will have to pay a lot more than an extra 0.6% for a couple unless we are living with a very low income. Again, I'm not saying whether I think it's right or wrong to do this, but 0.6% is no hardship for a couple making $170K.
__________________
"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 02-18-2013, 02:22 PM   #73
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
youbet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 9,965
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan View Post
I would love to have an AGI >$170k while on Medicare.
So would I!

Let's face it, we all need to pay more. From your posts, you and your family seem to be enjoying a nice retirement lifestyle. Certainly you should be paying more. You can afford it. And you would still have a superior lifestyle to most.

My real bottom line in all this Alan is simply that most everyone wants others who have more to pay a higher percentage in taxes. That is, to have a more steeply graduated tax system. That is, of course, as long as the steeper graduations start just above oneself!

We all feel that way. I try not to and I try to pay my own way not counting on the "wealthy" to cover for us. Still, it's a hard part of human nature to overcome and I understand.

Edit: BTW Alan, I think the Medicare surcharges are based on MAGI, not AGI. Not a big deal.
__________________
"I wasn't born blue blood. I was born blue-collar." John Wort Hannam
youbet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2013, 02:27 PM   #74
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 13,290
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimnjana View Post
Much of the unemployment in Europe has little to do with excess government spending. Old guild rules/organized labor rules keep new enterprises from starting in the first place. Protectionism is rampant. The excess government spending is just the norm over there to begin with. The unemployed are the first ones protesting cuts in government spending.

I do not know if this stmt is true or not... but, if it is true then I would bet that the young folks would be the loudest in changing those old guild rules/organized labor rules IF they were not getting some kind of gvmt assistance...

Just a thought....
__________________
Texas Proud is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2013, 02:28 PM   #75
Moderator
ziggy29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 15,613
Quote:
Originally Posted by youbet View Post
My real bottom line in all this Alan is simply that most everyone wants others who have more to pay a higher percentage in taxes. That is, to have a more steeply graduated tax system. That is, of course, as long as the steeper graduations start just above oneself!
I think we all know darned well that most folks support making tough choices about taxes and spending.... until it's their taxes or spending programs that are on the block. Then the screaming of bloody murder starts.

It feels like almost everyone thinks they should be a sacred cow and spared the pain that everyone else has to share. And as long as we continue that mindset which creates an "us against them" dynamic, nothing's gonna change there...
__________________
"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 02-18-2013, 02:29 PM   #76
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,038
My objection is changing the rules that I have been planning under. Not enough time to compensate when you are older.
__________________
In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not.
Lazarus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2013, 02:32 PM   #77
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
youbet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 9,965
Quote:
Originally Posted by ziggy29 View Post
But I suspect folks my age (and younger) will have to pay a lot more than an extra 0.6% for a couple unless we are living with a very low income.
Well, someone will have to pay and clearly it shouldn't be me. With youth on your side, it should be no problem to prepare for and pay the piper as necessary.

Just funning ya Zig.........

There's a little rhyme folks toss out about who should be paying more taxes. It has something to do with the "guy behind the tree" paying more. I can't remember it. Maybe someone will chime in and remind me of how it goes.
__________________
"I wasn't born blue blood. I was born blue-collar." John Wort Hannam
youbet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2013, 02:36 PM   #78
Moderator
ziggy29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 15,613
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lazarus View Post
My objection is changing the rules that I have been planning under. Not enough time to compensate when you are older.
I agree, and I think there should be a sliding scale to account for this.

What I don't want to see are "lines in the sand" that say "Age X, no change; Age X-1, full brunt of the change."

I also have a problem with a blanket exemption for folks above a certain age without regards to their means. I don't think that a middle class 30-something or 40-something should get a much worse deal from SS and Medicare reform when a retired CEO doesn't have to share the pain at all just because they are over some "magic number" (they don't *need* to "compensate" for anything, most likely). But that's just me and I suspect that's a lightning rod issue here, so I'll leave it at that.
__________________
"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 02-18-2013, 02:46 PM   #79
Moderator
Alan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Eee Bah Gum
Posts: 21,146
Quote:
Originally Posted by youbet View Post
So would I!

Let's face it, we all need to pay more. From your posts, you and your family seem to be enjoying a nice retirement lifestyle. Certainly you should be paying more. You can afford it. And you would still have a superior lifestyle to most.

My real bottom line in all this Alan is simply that most everyone wants others who have more to pay a higher percentage in taxes. That is, to have a more steeply graduated tax system. That is, of course, as long as the steeper graduations start just above oneself!

We all feel that way. I try not to and I try to pay my own way not counting on the "wealthy" to cover for us. Still, it's a hard part of human nature to overcome and I understand.

Edit: BTW Alan, I think the Medicare surcharges are based on MAGI, not AGI. Not a big deal.
The Medicare premiums are less than a 1/3 of what we pay now, and we still have excellent retiree HI. We have a great retirement lifestyle and our MAGI is nowhere near $170k/year. That is why an extra $84/mo at that income level doesn't seem much to me.
__________________
Retired in Jan, 2010 at 55, moved to England in May 2016
Now it's adventure before dementia
Alan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2013, 02:52 PM   #80
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,038
Quote:
Originally Posted by ziggy29 View Post
I agree, and I think there should be a sliding scale to account for this.

What I don't want to see are "lines in the sand" that say "Age X, no change; Age X-1, full brunt of the change."

I also have a problem with a blanket exemption for folks above a certain age without regards to their means. I don't think that a middle class 30-something or 40-something should get a much worse deal from SS and Medicare reform when a retired CEO doesn't have to share the pain at all just because they are over some "magic number" (they don't *need* to "compensate" for anything, most likely). But that's just me and I suspect that's a lightning rod issue here, so I'll leave it at that.
I don't disagree but I don't think there are enough retired CEO's to tax to make much difference.
__________________

__________________
In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not.
Lazarus 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


 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:42 PM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.