Notmuchlonger
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2007
- Messages
- 4,764
Few people argue that tax dollars shouldn't be used for emergency services such as 911. But how high should my taxes be to pay for these essential services?
As an analogy, how much should I pay a mutual fund company to provide essential services such as account maintenance and the purchase/selling of equities. Some companies charge a 2.5% annual fee and a 5% load (even for index funds). For the most part, companies selling these products are wasting my money. I can get a better overall product if I go with a company that has a 0.2% annual fee and no load. The government is like a mutual fund company. Unfortunately, their is no Vanguard equivalent when it comes to the government. Yes, the government provides essential services but it also wastes far more than it provides.
Four years ago, the State of California, with your tax-dollars, paid for the smog repairs for my car. I make over $180K/yr and my total net worth officially makes me a multimillionaire. Your tax dollars at work. I've owned two cars in my lifetime. I purchased one in 1982 and the other in 1985. In part, I purchased both cars using federally subsidized student loans. This was during the Reagan administration and its "war" against the educational system - students were forced onto the streets due to his evil administration. Thanks for the cars, Ron. Your tax dollars at work. Almost half of all college students in public colleges/university don't know the name of the vice president. Your tax dollars at work.
My marginal tax rate (all taxes) is almost 50%. If I get a raise, half of it goes to government. I paid about $70K in income-related taxes last year, compared to my own expenses of less than $30K. I gave more than twice what I spend on myself to the government. What incentive do I have to work hard and/or increase my productivity? In fact, the government gives me every incentive to decrease my productivity.
My plan is to early retire in less than 2 years when I'm eligible for lifetime medical benefits at 50. The cost-benefit isn't worth it. When I retire, my tax contributions will be reduced by more than a factor of 10. The government will get substantially less than it gets from me today. This is government incentives in action.
I don't buy your statement that you and your DW are trying to pay back the government for everything that the government has given to you. While yours is a feel good statement, your intentions suggest otherwise. A benevolent person wouldn't be a major contributor to an early retirement message forum. An able-bodied person who truly cares about all those essential tax-funded services provided by the government would insist on working until they're 67 and beyond. (And I'll wait until action before believing any claim about donating one's life to charitable work after retirement.)
Early retirement *is* selfish. Early retirement means less revenue for the government and is no different than those in the higher tax brackets wanting their taxes to be reduced (or wanting lower marginal tax rates). Perhaps the government should pass a law forbidding early retirement, or at least impute the incomes of those that do. The argument will be that if you early retire, you're not paying "your fair share." In fact, maybe the government should enforce a progressive retirement system. Those who squander their money or are otherwise financially dependent should be allowed to retire in their 50's. Those who are financially independent through hard work and life choices must work into their late 70's.
Me. I don't mind being selfish. I admit it. I'm much better able to decide how to spend my time and my money than the government.
Best thing Ive read. Someone admitting they are selfish. I am too!