Need to contact your reps if proposed - change dividend/cap taxes

[Gone4Good]

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.

 

[Running_Man]

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_campaign2008_mostpop

http://www.investmentnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081012/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/testimony/2008-10-07-TeresaGhilarducci.pdf

 

[FinanceDude]

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)

 

[utrecht]

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!

 

[Gone4Good]

Here is the plan that was discussed, as brought to Congress by the Democrat chair.

Thanks for the links.

 

[haha]

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

 

[Sarah in SC]

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.

 

[Gone4Good]

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 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".

 

[Independent]

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.

 

[Notmuchlonger]

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!

 

[Abreutime]

If you want to renounce any of the products and services that other people's kids will be making available to you, go right ahead and refuse to pay taxes that benefit children. And when you are old, be sure that you go to doctors and dentists who are aliens and hence have not used any services paid for by you. And ditto the trash collectors, the people who turn you over in the nursing home to avoid your bedsores, and .....

People who raise children, especially intelligent well educated children, are giving those who don't a massive free ride.

Ha

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

Stop going on and on about fallacious arguments, when you keep presenting a false dichotomy. It's not a choice between 1) schools paid for by everyone's property taxes and 2) Dumb kids. We may get both, you know. The US was able to provide essential goods and services long before we had property taxes pay for schools, and I wouldn't expect that to change if we directed the cost of education more toward the direct recipients of this investment.

 

[unclemick]

You do know (take it from a guy who knows the Saint's have never made it to the Superbowl) there is a nagging possibility neither the 'lame duck' outgoing pol's nor the newly victorious incoming have a clue as to the real cause of the current 'unpleasantness' or any ideas to fix it that will actually work.

Here's hoping Turbo Tax stays in business - the updates aren't too expensive, and I can afford any forth coming 'elegant solutions.'

heh heh heh - Saint's lost to the Dirty Bird's, weather's getting nippy like winter, and soo far still jaded enough to sleep night's in my 15th yr of ER.

Pat's still have a good team and Pssst Wellesley, SEC yield 5.8%, sometimes ER gets bumpy but somebody's got to do it - soldier on! .

 

[dex]

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.

Capital and labor are like water and ice - the same thing at different states.

Politicians like to point out the differences for class warfare and confuse the issues.

Labor earns money - tax the income
Labor saves (capital) money - tax the interest/dividends/cap gains
Labor put money (capital) into a business - tax the profits of the business and (possibly) the distribution to the owners - their income

Money is being taxed.

Water and ice.

How much and where it is taxed in the process is a legislative determination intended to meet the goals of the legislature.

 

[haha]

Stop going on and on about fallacious arguments, when you keep presenting a false dichotomy. It's not a choice between 1) schools paid for by everyone's property taxes and 2) Dumb kids. We may get both, you know. The US was able to provide essential goods and services long before we had property taxes pay for schools, and I wouldn't expect that to change if we directed the cost of education more toward the direct recipients of this investment.

You miss my point. I agree that for the most part public schools are miserable failures. I would favor vouchers, since everyone obviously cannot pay for school. I also would favor a more controlled Euro type system, where you come out prepared to do something.

My mainpoint is that raising children to adulthood is the main task of each generation, which is mainly though not entirely done by the class called parents.

Parents themselves benefit from this effort, but so do all others.

And I will go on about it as much as I want to.

Ha

 

[haha]

Capital and labor are like water and ice - the same thing at different states.

This is not true. In manufacturing and agriculture capital can substitute to a great extent for labor. This is much less true in service industries. That is why service prices continue on up while manufactured goods get cheaper.

Ha

 

[dex]

This is not true. In manufacturing and agriculture capital can substitute to a great extent for labor. This is much less true in service industries. That is why service prices continue on up while manufactured goods get cheaper.
Ha

My comments did not address the issue of the the percentage of labor and capital in a particular industry. It was discussing taxes.

 

[haha]

My comments did not address the issue of the the percentage of labor and capital in a particular industry. It was discussing taxes.

Well, you fooled me.

Capital and labor are like water and ice - the same thing at different states.

ha

 

[dex]

Well, you fooled me.
ha

I couldn't do that. You can only do that by not reading the post I was replying to.

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.

 

[Gone4Good]

Capital and labor are like water and ice - the same thing at different states.

So if we accept this, then we should accept that labor and capital should be treated equally by our tax code.