Another Consideration? Future "Tax" on Savings

[meierlde]

Quote:

Originally Posted by seraphim Fermion - you stated a tax on savings, not a tax on returns. There's a major difference. I agree the taxes from ACA will seep down to middle incomes. Already happening, with the 3.5% tax on insurance providers on all policies acquired via the federal exchange. The consumer will end up paying that increase.

Of course France does have a wealth tax, and the US sort of has a 1 time wealth tax if your estate is above 5.2 million. (The Estate tax).

[marko]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MasterBlaster Somehow though I suspect that the people adversely affected won't just be a few rich guys.

The rich guys always have a work-around. It's financial whack-a-mole.

The middle guys will pay the freight --as it's always been-- while the very rich will just move themselves/their money to a better location. "Tax the rich" makes people feel better but never really happens.

OTOH, Isn't this research written by the same Harvard weenies who made some big math mistake modeling another dire, end-of-the-world warning?

[kmt1972]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fermion Yes I just realized that muni bond interest doesn't apply to the 3.8% tax. I really have not investigated the tax enough because it will not impact me directly. I hate to say that because I know at some point down the road there will be someone who doesn't care about what new taxes do impact me because it doesn't impact them.

Yep. I took some time a while ago to research this just to make sure as it affects me a lot as I own quite a bit of Munis. Also the way the 3.8% tax is structured it makes it even more lucrative for me to sell my losers while our AGI is above $250K and sell our winners after we FIRE and AGI are below $250K.

As for tax on net worth, I guess it is possible but then all it will do is to push people to invest money into hard to track, assess, and tax assets like art and wine. And in the end it will not raise the revenue as assumed. Because of that this is not likely.

[meierlde]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kmt1972 As for tax on net worth, I guess it is possible but then all it will do is to push people to invest money into hard to track, assess, and tax assets like art and wine. And in the end it will not raise the revenue as assumed. Because of that this is not likely.

Note that there used to be more universal wealth taxes, in that you paid an intangibles tax on stocks and bonds, this has gradually disappeared (it was a state tax btw). Of course we have the 1 time in your life wealth tax, the estate tax, all be it you have to have a net worth of above 5.3 million to hit it.

[AllDone]

Since federal taxes are at a 50 or 60 year low, it's likely that they will go up sometime in the future. At some other time they'll go down. Ideally they'll go up a bit in good times and down a bit in the bad times. Taxes are the price of we pay for a civilized society according to Oliver Wendell Holmes and he was a pretty smart guy.

[Independent]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tekward "Western debt burden is now so big that rich states will need same tonic of debt haircuts, higher inflation and financial repression - defined as an opaque tax on savers.” IMF paper warns of 'savings tax' and mass write-offs as West's debt hits 200-year high - Telegraph Is this possible to model? I generally assume 2% inflation on my yearly needs, 0% on my investments and -1% return on my COLA'd pensions.

Lots of people who post here model less than 100% of their scheduled Social Security benefits. Some of them say stuff like "SS will probably be means tested. Since I'm saving, I'll be one of those people with means."
I'd call that a "savings tax" driven by the cost of entitlements.

[kmt1972]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Independent Lots of people who post here model less than 100% of their scheduled Social Security benefits. Some of them say stuff like "SS will probably be means tested. Since I'm saving, I'll be one of those people with means." I'd call that a "savings tax" driven by the cost of entitlements.

I assume we will only get 70% of our SS benefits (I think this is reasonable since my understanding is that SS is funded indefinitely at 75% of the benefits) and that 100% of our SS benefits will be taxed as opposed to 85%.